Wednesday, 2 November 1983 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. J. Hamer) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 84 citizens) and Harradine (from 106 citizens ). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 17 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 60 citizens) and Collard (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 42 citizens), Button (from 45 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 614 citizens), Chaney (from 99 citizens), Harradine (from 111 citizens) and Sibraa (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: (1) Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. (2) Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. (3) Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. (4) Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 839 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine: (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 71 citizens), Harradine (from 17 citizens), Peter Rae ( from 30 citizens), and Walters (from 234 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accummulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 88 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, being parents and other persons concerned about the education of all children, showeth that the present Government has commenced a policy of reduction and eventual abolition in Government funding to independent schools. This policy has been adopted without an appropriate and reasoned consideration of the circumstances of those schools and the parents who choose to send their children to them. In particular the Government, in making its decision, has failed to take into account the impact on the state school system of an increased enrolment of students who otherwise would have attended independent schools in the event that Government funding had not been reduced or abolished. The change in policy overlooks the fact that the cost of educating a child in a government school is two to three times the cost to the tax-payer of educating the same child in an independent school. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled reverse the decision of the Government and re-instate funding on an equitable basis as has been the case in previous years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 210 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That every child in Australia is entitled to government financial support for their education whether they attend government schools or non-government schools . You petitioners therefore humbly pray that urgent consideration be given to a favourable decision for the continuation of Federal Government per capita grants payable in respect of all children in non-government schools at a rate calculated as a percentage of government standard costs at a level not less than that prevailing in 1983. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. A Bill is now pending in your honourable House entitled ''A Bill for An Act relating to discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy or involving sexual harassment.'' 2. Your petitioners say that the effects of certain provisions of the Bill if enacted into law will be to enable persons to coerce women to engage in paid employment, and to surrender the care of their children to child care institutions, to grant rights to foreign persons upon a United Nations Commission to enter upon Australian Territory with powers to inspect, investigate and to seek to influence, to report and recommend, with the object of procuring total employment of Australian women, and that all of these things will lead to the elimination of the traditional family unit. 3. That your petitioners say that the Bill if passed into law as it now stands will be insulting to the women of Australia, harmful to our families, and a grievous interference with the freedom of the Australian citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill may not be allowed to pass into law as it now stands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 661 citizens). Petitions received. Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with the notice of intention to withdraw a notice of motion given on 1 November, I now withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) -I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) acknowledges the tremendous support and encouragement which the people of Queensland have shown for the private enterprise policies, and strong, determined leadership which the National Party has displayed in that State for the past 25 years; and (b) thanks Senators Jones, Colston and Walsh for their vocal contributions to the election results, on the floor of this chamber, by ensuring that all those listening to their frequent and exhausting diatribes did not vote for their party, the Australian Labor Party. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) congratulates the Premier, Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, for his victory at the Queensland polls in the October 22 election; (b) acknowledges that the main reason for the National Party's success was that it had become identified with private enterprise economics, positive job creation policies, low taxes and conservative principles, unlike the Labor Party 's line of soft policies, sexism, a Bill of Rights and a new design for a flag; (c) congratulates the Queensland people for voting for a Government that lives up to its promises; and (d) condemns Federal Labor Ministers and Senators for their unwarranted attacks on the Queensland economy and the Bjelke-Petersen Government, which have been to no avail as the result on October 22 at the Queensland poll indicates. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) Expresses its concern at the Government's intention to give the Canberra Commercial Development Authority responsibility for construction and management of the Erindale shopping centre; (2) Believes such a decision would seriously jeopardise prospects for future private investment in the Australian Capital Territory; (3) Calls for the encouragement of greater non-government participation in Canberra development projects through a clear demonstration that such investment is welcome and does not have to overcome inbuilt favoured treatment for semi- government authorities; (4) Points out that Canberra's long term interests will best be served by it shedding the image of a closed, Public Service dominated society and that a decision in favour of the development authority on the Erindale centre would do nothing to promote such a changed perception. Postponement of Notice of Motion Motion (by Senator Reid)-by leave-agreed to: That business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name and relating to the disallowance of the Casino Control Ordinance be postponed until Thursday, 17 November 1983. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.08) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BILL 1983 The Transfer of Prisoners Bill has evolved as a result of agreement by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to introduce a legislative scheme to permit the transfer of prisoners between the various Australian jurisdictions for welfare purposes or trial. State and Northern Territory legislation will deal with the transfer of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against State or Northern Territory laws. The Transfer of Prisoners Bill will deal with the transfer of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against Commonwealth laws and prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for offences against the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. As I have indicated prisoners may be transferred for the purposes of welfare or trial. The transfer of prisoners for welfare purposes will assist the rehabilitation of prisoners and minimise the hardship caused to the families of prisoners. Procedures for this type of transfer are to be initiated by written application of the prisoner to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Attorney- General may make an order for the transfer of a ''Commonwealth'' prisoner from one State or Territory to another if the appropriate minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents and the Attorney-General considers that the transfer would be in the interests of the administration of justice and the welfare of the prisoner. It should be noted that these two considerations are not exclusive and that the Attorney-General may accordingly consider any other relevant matter in exercising his discretion. The transfer of prisoners for the purposes of trial will remedy a deficiency in Australian law which prevents a prisoner being moved from one jurisdiction to another to stand trial until he has served his prison term in the first jurisdiction. If the prison term in the first jurisdiction is a lengthy one there are obvious difficulties for the prosecution. Such transfers will accordingly benefit the administration of justice within Australia. It will also be of benefit to prisoners who are anxious to have all outstanding charges in different jurisdictions dealt with rather than serve a sentence in one jurisdiction and thereafter be extradited to another jurisdiction. Procedures for this type of transfer depend on whether the charge in respect of which the prisoner is to be transferred is a Federal or Territory charge or a State charge. Where the charge is a Federal or Territory charge the Commonwealth Attorney-General may, either of his own motion or at the request of the prisoner apply to a court of summary jurisdiction in the jurisdiction in which the prisoner is imprisoned for an order transferring the prisoner to the other State or Territory. That application shall not be made unless the appropriate Minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents. Where the charge is a State charge, the application is made by the appropriate State Minister, either of his own motion or at the request of the prisoner and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth must consent. The court of summary jurisdiction is obliged to make an order of transfer unless it considers that the charge is trivial, the application has not been made in the interests of justice, the transfer would prejudice the conduct of proceedings to which the prisoner is a party or it would be unjust to grant the application. The decision of a court of summary jurisdiction is reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Bill must of necessity deal with various technical matters relating to the status of prisoners who are transferred, the effect of the transfer on the sentence or imprisonment, and the procedures for returning prisoners, transferred for trial, to the original jurisdiction. To simplify release procedures Territory prisoners who are transferred become prisoners of the jurisdiction to which they are transferred. Thus, an A.C.T. prisoner who is transferred to Queensland will become a Queensland prisoner. This change of status is not necessary in respect of Federal prisoners who will continue to be housed in State gaols throughout Australia as Federal prisoners. To change their status if they were transferred would only complicate release procedures as such prisoners are released pursuant to Commonwealth law. As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned the broad effect is that once a prisoner is transferred the sentence imposed in the first jurisdiction is deemed for all purposes, including the exercise of the royal prerogative, remissions and release on parole, to have been imposed in the jurisdiction to which he has been transferred. Remissions earnt and non-parole periods fixed in the original jurisdiction are applied in the receiving jurisdiction. Where a prisoner is transferred from jurisdiction 'A' to jurisdiction 'B' for trial there is provision for his transfer back to jurisdiction 'A' if he does not receive any sentence in jurisdiction 'B' or a sentence shorter than the unserved balance of the sentence applicable in jurisdiction 'A'. The costs which will have to be borne by the Commonwealth as a result of enactment of this legislation are not substantial. The Commonwealth will have to bear the travelling costs of Federal and Territory offenders transferred for welfare purposes and all offenders who are transferred to answer Commonwealth or Territory changes. Existing arrangements provide for the Commonwealth to bear the cost of housing Territory prisoners and the States to bear the cost of housing Federal prisoners. The Commonwealth will not incur any additional costs with respect to the housing of prisoners because of this Legislation. It is estimated that about 10-15 Federal and Territory prisoners will be transferred per annum with the likelihood of more prisoners seeking transfer this financial year than in subsequent years. The Travelling costs of transferring prisoners under escort should average out at approximately $1000 per prisoner transferred. The introduction of these Bills represents the Commonwealth's contribution to a legislative scheme which will greatly benefit the system of administration of justice within Australia, assist the rehabilitation of prisoners, and reduce the hardships suffered by the members of prisoners' families. I commend the Bill to the Senate. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1983 This Bill is necessary to resolve possible conflict between the Transfer of Prisoners Bill and other Commonwealth legislation which authorises the removal of prisoners. The Removal of Prisoners (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1968 and The Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923 authorise the removal of prisoners from the Australian Capital Territory and the other territories, including the Northern Territory, respectively, and, in certain circumstanes their return. Since the Transfer of Prisoners Bill will also authorise the transfer of prisoners, there is the possibility of conflict between that Bill and these two Acts. Because of the difficulty in identifying the circumstances in which a removal Act should be used rather than the transfer legislation, and vice versa, the Bill provides for the Commonwealth Attorney-General to make a choice of the appropriate law according to the circumstances of each individual case. In addition it should be noted that The Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act will be amended by the Bill to no longer apply to transfers from the Northern Territory. This amendment has been requested by the Northern Territory and henceforth all transfers from the Northern Territory will be dealt with by the Northern Territory transfer of prisoners legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Debate resumed from 1 November 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —I thank the honourable senators who have taken part in this debate. I, like them, do not wish to delay the passage of this legislation. I certainly do not want to enter into the internecine dispute which was exemplified by Senator Kilgariff's half- hour burst yesterday afternoon against the honourable member for the Northern Territory, Mr Reeves. I note that Senator Kilgariff expressed some concern at the time that there was a review of assistance to the Northern Territory but I point out to Senator Kilgariff that this review is part of the normal process which takes place in considering financial assistance between the Commonwealth and the various States and Territories. If, as Senator Kilgariff says, everything is so fine and well in the Northern Territory and that the Northern Territory Government is acting in the way that he claims it has acted-I would need more proof than the tabling of a few Press statements from the Treasurer of the Northern Territory and a few signed documents from public servants from the Northern Territory to be convinced of that-surely he should not have any concerns about the normal review processes taking place. I found some difficulty understanding the logic and the approach of both Senator Messner and Senator Sir John Carrick in their speeches last night. It seems to me that both honourable senators complained bitterly that the present Government, as I heard it, was spending too much in this form of assistance to the housing industry in this community. Senator Sir John Carrick suggested that this would not create sufficient jobs. He suggested that the best way to create jobs was to continue with the bicentennial water scheme which he, as a Minister, had something to do with, which would have involved $70m in the next few years and which somehow or other apparently was more labour-intensive than the housing industry in this community. That is something that I do not understand. What we faced as a government was the fact that the housing industry last year was at a record low; under the previous Government it was at a record low. If one wanted an example of an industry in recession one looked at the housing and building industry generally last year. In the light of Senator Sir John Carrick's speech yesterday we must also ask where the previous Government was going to perform the economic magic of carrying out all the capital works it intended to carry out and, at the same time, reducing the expenditure in the way Senator Sir John Carrick apparently believed it should be reduced. Senator Messner similarly took the approach that in fact we should spend more on large capital works and, at the same time, reduce government expenditure and reduce taxation, something which I find very difficult to understand but, I suppose, it is easy enough to say that sort of thing from the Opposition benches. Both Senator Messner and, I believe, Senator Kilgariff, talked about the Alice Springs-Darwin railway link. They talked about the importance, as they saw it, of this project to the Northern Territory. Senator Messner in particular talked about its importance in the whole Australian job scene. But again, we are talking about a project which would cost some $600m and which would have needed a subsidy in excess of $1m each year to run. We have made an offer to the Northern Territory. We have said to the Northern Territory Government that if it has the great conviction that it claims to have that the railway line should be built and if it insists on proceeding with it the Northern Territory Government should make some contribution towards its construction. The Northern Territory Government cannot expect the Commonwealth to fund both a railway and a road without any contribution from the Northern Territory. We will see what the Northern Territory Government has to say about that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not believe this legislation should be delayed. I believe it is an important part of the Budget. It is an important part of our attempt to increase the number of jobs and to increase them in those industries where there is the greatest spin-off. The simple fact of the matter is that in seasonally adjusted terms in the last few months there has been an increase of 80,000 in the number of jobs available in this community . The simple fact of the matter is that we said at the time of the May statement , before that statement and at the time of the Budget that we did not expect a sudden decrease in the number of people unemployed. We accepted and the community accepted that that was so and that the Government could not suddenly turn around the unemployment figures in the way that Senator Sir John Carrick and Senator Messner apparently believe is possible but was never possible when they were in government. Finally, I make the point that in the last couple of months there has been a decrease-the figure has decreased to 602,000-in the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit. Our Budget prediction was that on average 600,000 people would be receiving the unemployment benefit this year. Neither I nor anyone in the Government is claiming that that decrease is anything more than a return to the normal pattern of unemployment beneficiaries throughout the year. But even that, in itself, is a considerable achievement, considering that last year from May through to December there was an absolute skyrocketing of the number of people on unemployment benefit resulting in almost a doubling of the number. The fact that we have had a decrease in recent months and the fact that the pattern is, maybe, at least returning to the pattern of previous years and may constitute a greater decrease than there was in recent years demonstrate some hope that the unemployment levels themselves are steadying out. I point out that the number of people on unemployment benefit is an absolute figure; it is not a survey figure, as are the other figures that are frequently quoted around this place. If the figure continues as it is, our estimates are that the amount of money needed for unemployment benefit this year will be considerably lower than the Treasurer (Mr Keating) predicted in the Budget. That will also be a good thing for this country, this Government and the budgetary implications generally. I believe that there is no need for the gloom and doom that we have heard from those opposite during this debate. I shall seek answers to the couple of specific questions raised by Senator Kilgariff. I would have thought that if he spent more of his time working on the positive aspects of what can be done in the Northern Territory rather than spending every speech in this place condemning the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves)-- Senator Walters —Don't be so pompous and condescending. That is a ridiculous statement. Senator GRIMES —For Senator Walters to accuse anyone of being condescending in this place is the greatest example of Satan condemning sin that could be demonstrated. I merely make the factual point that Senator Kilgariff never rises to his feet in this place without spending half of his speech attacking the member for the Northern Territory. If he wants to do that instead of taking up positive aspects, that is fair enough. For Senator Sir John Carrick to complain about anyone attacking anyone else in this place is absolutely outrageous. He is always very keen to bucket people in this place, but he does not like it when he gets the same back in kind. Senator Sir John Carrick —Never on a personal character basis. Senator GRIMES —'Never on a personal basis'. What Senator Sir John Carrick does in this place is to take the coward's way out. He collectively blackguards people, but he never does it on an individual basis. Senator Sir John Carrick —Never on a personal basis. Senator GRIMES —I will follow it on an individual basis. I will respond to that sort of tactic of Senator Sir John Carrick by taking it on on a personal basis, as I have in the past. The trouble is that he gets up and whinges when he gets it back; he whinges and screams in this place. We need to take a more positive approach in debates such as this. If we are to have whingeing from the back benchers on the other side, we can. They will not be here for very long. Their time has run out. I thank those honourable senators who have taken a positive approach to this legislation. I hope that in future in the area of Commonwealth- State co-operation we shall continue as we have started, making positive approaches to assist in the areas of housing and of assistance to the Northern Territory in a way which will have positive effects on not only employment prospects but also the economic prospects of all Australians. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.19) —With some concern, I draw the attention of the Government and the Committee to clause 9 of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983, on which I would like to have the comments of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I will read through at least the first few lines of the clause to make the point. Sub-clause (1) states: The Treasurer may, during the period of 6 months commencing on 1 July 1984, make payments to a State specified in column 1 of the Schedule, for the purpose of financial assistance for expenditure . . . The point I make is that this Bill appears to authorise expenditure in a year other than this Budget year which we are currently examining, and apparently authorises expenditure out of the next financial year for which no budget, as far as I know, has been considered by the Government or indeed by the Parliament . It seems to me an unusual procedure for expenditures to be authorised in this fashion. I do not know why it is deemed necessary to have this kind of clause in a Bill like this, although I can imagine that there may well be projects which flow over from one year to another. The point that I make is that quite clearly in the Schedule there is a ceiling figure authorised, some $489m, by virtue of this Bill for expenditure out of the next financial year's Budget. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.22) —I think the answer-I certainly am the last person to claim expertise in this area-is this: From my reading of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill-there are similar provisions in the other piece of legislation that we are examining-it is a long-standing arrangement which enables the Commonwealth, by agreement with the States, to make payments and to arrange the level of payments for the next financial year as a result of negotiations this year. I do not think what Senator Messner has brought up is any different from the procedures which have taken place in other years, from my memory. I will certainly seek further details as to the accuracy of that statement. We need to allow advance payments for arrangements for 1984-85. The inclusion of clause 9 is a contingency to allow for the possible continuation in 1984-85 of arrangements similar to those provided by this Bill in relation to 1983-84. It provides for that continuity and for the sort of planning of which I would have thought Senator Messner was in favour. Sub-clause (1) authorises the Treasurer to make payments to the States of nominated amounts during the first six months of 1984-85 up to the limit of the borrowing element of their 1983-84 Loan Council program to provide that flexibility and continuity. I do not know how that can be done without making arrangements like this and I do not think that the amounts involved will be destructive of any future Budget. I believe that that procedure has gone on in the past. I would be open to correction if it has not. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.24) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his reply. In my remarks I did acknowledge the point that he has made that there would obviously be some need for provision of on-going funds in the event of a project running beyond the end of this financial year. However, it strikes me as rather odd that this Bill authorises expenditure out of a future year's Budget rather than this year's Budget. I make that point merely as one of financial control and the control of the Parliament over the expenditure of moneys by the Government. Although I acknowledge the point that the Minister has made, I am not convinced that this kind of thing is necessary in legislation of this kind because, as the Minister has acknowledged, there certainly is some kind of contractual arrangement or obligation on the part of the Commonwealth to meet its financial commitments in the year ahead in relation to the States and the Northern Territory, that being the purpose of this Bill. But I think that is a different question from the authority for allocating finance up to a certain definite amount of $489m out of next year's Budget. I would like to draw that point to the attention of the Government and ask the Minister to examine the question and bring down his reply later for us. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.26) —I will certainly do that, although I must point out to Senator Messner that in other areas such as my own Department-I do not know about his old Department-forward commitments are made, albeit the volume of money is less. I refer particularly to the funding of aged persons accommodation and the like, where such a provision allows departments to plan ahead. I would not have thought that this situation was so different, except for the volume of money. The clause that we are talking about allows for advances for nominated funds should the Government decide that the arrangements will continue. I think it is a mechanical provision designed to overcome difficulties that have been experienced in making payments to the States this year. But I accept Senator Messner's point that we are making commitments for a Budget a year ahead. I will seek further details from the Treasury. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 September 1983 on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.28) —We are debating the Migration Amendment Bill and the Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I intend to confine my remarks to the Migration Amendment Bill 1983. The Opposition is not opposing either of these Bills. However, as would be very well known, in the House of Representatives an amendment was moved to the Migration Amendment Bill which I give notice that I shall move in the Committee stage. There was a full debate on the Bill in the House of Representatives. It is not our intention to recanvass all the issues of the Bill. I state briefly the Opposition's attitude towards the amendments to the Migration Act that are contained in the Migration Amendment Bill. The first and very important amendment-one which the Opposition supports-is designed to remove the distinction that has existed in the past in the Migration Act between the terms 'alien' and 'immigrant'. An alien was someone who came here from a non- Commonwealth country. The term 'immigrant' applied to someone from a Commonwealth country. That distinction is removed by these amendments and people previously referred to as either aliens or immigrants will now be referred to as non-citizens. As clearly as possible I say that the Opposition has no objection to, and, in fact, supports that change. There was some confusion in the House of Representatives when other issues in the Bill were being debated. Some Government members did not understand that the Opposition was not opposing that change. The second aspect of the Bill is a restriction on the right of the Minister in relation to deportation. During the election campaign the Australian Labor Party gave several undertakings in relation to deportation and the Opposition accepts that it has a right to fulfil those undertakings. It basically eliminates the deportation power of the Minister over a non-citizen who has had 10 years residence in Australia. However, it also defines in a different way the grounds for deportation of a non-citizen by the Minister. People may wish to criticise the previous grounds but the fact is that they will be replaced by new sections and new grounds. Our main criticism of this new provision is that we believe that the Government is being too restrictive on itself. The point was made at length in debate in the House of Representatives, and I will make it only briefly here that in defining grounds for deportation the Migration Amendment Bill provides, in broad outline, for deportation of non-citizens present in Australia for less than 10 years who are convicted of crimes where the offence is an offence for which the person was sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than one year. Because that is so restrictive a number of anomalies could arise. It has been pointed out that not very many States have the death penalty any more; so that is a provision that is becoming less likely to apply. Life imprisonment is most likely to be given as a penalty for murder. However, in regard to the third section-the period of not less than one year of imprisonment-while one accepts that the Government does not mean that provision to apply in petty or trivial circumstances, nevertheless it is possible to have a habitual offender against the law who at no stage actually receives a single sentence of one year. So we could have an anomaly where an individual who receives a sentence for a crime of one year is liable to deportation and another individual who has received over a period a number of convictions and a number of sentences, each of them for less than one year, who in toto may serve in prison a substantial period of time, is not liable for deportation under this Bill. That criticism has been made and it may be that the Government could look at tidying up that part of the Bill. The more serious criticism we have relates to the deportation of non-citizens upon security grounds. Clause 11 of the Bill amends section 14 of the Migration Act and specifies that certain sections of the Crimes Act will become grounds for consideration of deportation. Those sections are section 24, which relates to treason; section 24AA, which relates to treachery; section 24AB, which relates to sabotage; section 24C, which relates to certain kinds of sedition; section 25, which relates to inciting munity; and section 26, which relates to assisting prisoners of war to escape. In being so restrictive the Government has almost got itself into a nonsense situation. In fact, those offences specified from the Crimes Act are offences for which there has either never been a conviction in Australia or for which there have been very few convictions. The likelihood of people being convicted of treason, treachery, inciting mutiny- which has never carried a conviction in this Commonwealth-or assisting prisoners of war to escape is very remote. On the other hand, the Government seems to have overlooked certain other sections of the Crimes Act which one would think would be rather more likely to apply. In debate in the House of Representatives it was pointed out that, for example, one could reasonably expect offences under section 78 of the Crimes Act , which relates to espionage and similar activities, to be a little more likely to occur, as would offences under section 81, which relates to harbouring spies. When the Government made its decision to pick out sections of the Crimes Act one assumes that it would have made a deliberate decision. It is hard to understand why it would pick out in section 24, to which I have referred, crimes which are highly unlikely to be committed but ignore the sections 78 and 81. The Opposition approached this matter in debate in the House of Representatives on the basis that it was an oversight, but apparently it was unable, through debate-I have read the record of the debate very thoroughly-to penetrate this point to the Government. The Opposition pointed out that other sections of the Crimes Act, which one would expect the Government to consider very seriously, are not covered in this provision of the amending Act. Therefore, the Opposition moved to amend the Bill-as we shall move at the Committee stage-in very broad terms to cover the sorts of offences which I have mentioned and some others. We wish to make the point that whilst the Government has deliberately set out to restrict the basis for deportation-that is its choice-we think it has gone too far and it may regret having gone as far as it has in its restrictiveness. I think there are people who would agree that there are types of offences which could be committed by non-citizens which would indicate that the person involved is somebody who we would not want to have as a member of the Australian community. The subject will be debated in more detail at the Committee stage. I state it at this stage in order to give the Government the opportunity to respond at the second reading stage, in whatever general terms it sees fit, to the general criticism which was made in the House of Representatives and which, frankly, was not responded to by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). The Minister sought either to misunderstand or misrepresent the Opposition's view in relation to the alien immigration section, which I reiterate we are not opposing. In relation to the specific amendment the Minister merely said that the Government had the numbers. That was about as much interest as he had in the actual amendment. I hope that in response to debate in the Senate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who represents the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, will take this matter a little more seriously and will be able to explain better to the Parliament why the Government would seek overly to restrict itself in this way and why it would find a distinction between the sections in the Crimes Act which are specified in the amendment Bill and the sections to which I have referred, namely, sections 78 and 81. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.38) —The Senate is debating two migration Bills cognately. There are two principal matters involved in the Bills. One is to remove distinctions between various non-citizens of Australia, which have operated to this point, so that non-citizens are treated alike. Secondly, there is no longer to be a distinction between Commonwealth citizens, who are not citizens of Australia, and persons of other nationality, who are otherwise called aliens, persons of Irish nationality, for whom some special category existed in the past, and protected persons, that is, persons from former colonies of Australia. Those persons, all of whom are non-citizens of Australia, will by this amendment be treated alike as non-citizens. In this respect there is bipartisan support in the Senate and in the Parliament. Unlike earlier generations in Australia when these sub-categories of distinctions were important, it is mature, reasonable and reflects public opinion in Australia for us to not have discrimination between persons who have the capability-it does not matter from which country they originate-to become full citizens of Australia. In the process of a person becoming a full citizen of Australia, whether that person comes here as a visitor or as a permanent resident with the appropriate visa to remain in this country-in most cases such a person would go on to become a citizen of Australia-we ought not to distinguish between a person coming from Britain, the Commonwealth countries, Ireland, former colonies of Australia and other countries. They are all alike. In the two most recent decades they have been given the opportunity to become good Australian citizens and genuinely part of this country and we ought not in this preliminary way to discriminate between them. Australia has had and continues to have special relationships with various parts of the world. We talk about Australia having a special relationship with its immediate neighbours in the South Pacific and South East Asia. This is true. However, I do not think that this relationship should move us to create a distinction in terms of our Migration Act by making it easier under law for people from countries that have a special relationship with Australia to be given some special migration status in respect of entry visas. Nor should there be any special migration status for those coming from the United Kingdom or Ireland, places from which the majority of people have come over the last two centuries. We recognise and we are proud of that part of Australia's cultural heritage. But notwithstanding the special relationship we have traditionally had with the peoples from the United Kingdom and Ireland, we can no longer discriminate under the Migration Act and give them special status. In the same way, we can say that New Guinea has a special relationship with Australia. As a nation, we were responsible for the government of Papua New Guinea throughout most of this century. We sought to give the people of Papua New Guinea the opportunity to conduct their own independent government and become a nation of the world. This has happened. We have strong, close and almost kinship links with that former colony of Australia. But, again, that is no longer any argument that the people of Papua New Guinea should be given a special migration status. It is undoubtedly true that people from every part of the world have made their homes in Australia. Some of these people have been refugees. Some have come to fulfil their own aspirations to settle in a new country. Some have come to escape from poverty of their original country or a suffocating class structure. They have come because of the idealism we have tried to express and show as able to be achieved in Australia. I think we are now in a reasonable and mature way removing the distinctions that would advantage, in favour of or give a special migration status to discriminate people from countries, whether they be in Asia or Europe, which have had a special relationship with Australia. Therefore, I say again that there is bipartisan support for that part of the legislation before us that relates to citizens and non-citizens. There is only a transitional group-that is , persons from all national backgrounds who, although permanent residents of Australia, are not citizens. To the extent that they are permanently resident in Australia they are regarded as being part of our country and are put in a special category for visa status purposes. We are now removing the notion of an alien, of a protected person and of any special status given to British subjects or to Irish citizens. Whilst there is bipartisan support for the major part of the amendments, we ought not to assume falsely that this means that in Australia's foreign policy we will no longer have special relationships in the world. In our immigration procedures, by this amendment to the Migration Act, we will no longer make category distinctions and discriminations between persons who would be excellent Australian citizens. We will not discriminate against them by way of category distinctions. We are not dealing with individual persons in our foreign policy, but we are dealing with national interests, with countries and with regions. I urge the Government most strongly to maintain our special and quite discriminating relationship with the Commonwealth. Australia is part of the Commonwealth. We should co-operate with other members of the Commonwealth in our foreign policy to achieve peace in a special way in troubled periods in Commonwealth countries. We should seek to help each other and uphold the interests of the Commonwealth against those of other parts of the world. Similarly in our foreign policy we will discern a difference between countries in our region such as the countries which are members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the countries of the South Pacific and Papua New Guinea. We direct most of our development assistance and overseas aid to those parts of the world. We should continue to do so. We should be quite discerning and discriminating about Australia's national interest and about our regional interest to assist in the development of our closest neighbours. So no false assumption should be inferred from these amendments to the Migration Act which remove discrimination between individuals of different national origins in coming to Australia that the Bill in any way removes any of our foundation approaches to foreign policy. I turn now to the second matter of substance in the Bills before us. This matter concerns the removal of the power of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs with regard to deportation of offenders who are not citizens of Australia but for whom, in the protection of Australian citizens, a case could be made for their deportation. This Bill is unwise and overreaching because it removes the proper discretion from the Minister. The Government is binding itself by this law not to have freedom of action to protect the citizens of Australia. Australians should be alerted by the fact that this Government is throwing away part of its sovereign responsibility as the elected government of Australia to protect the citizens of Australia. It has done so out of, I think, some perverted sense of civil liberties. The case put by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in the other place was that anyone who has lived in Australia for 10 years ought to feel that he is home and hosed and that he is above being deported from Australia whatever offence he commits against the citizens of Australia. I think that is a perverted sense of civil liberties. The Minister has always had the ability properly to weigh up the situation, take advice, hear directly the views of the person to be deported and make a judgment that takes into consideration the rights of that individual and his family. He has been able to weigh up the individual's civil liberties against the offence and make a judgment as to whether it is appropriate for him to be deported. But that discretion, by this legislation, is to be removed. The Minister will not be able to make that judgment, to weigh up the evidence in respect of persons who have been permanent residents of Australia for 10 years. So it is clause 11 of the Migration Amendment Bill 1983 which is offensive to us in the Opposition. Even now we urge the Government to reconsider that and to accept the amendment that we will be moving in the Committee stage. I give notice that we will move that in clause 11 we insert the following new sub-section: '' '(1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person'.''. We want to add to the Government's proposed highly restricted list of grounds for the deportation of a non-citizen who has been a permanent resident here for 10 years. That highly restricted list refers only to treason, treachery, sabotage, seditious acts, inciting mutiny or assisting prisoners of war to escape. To that restricted set of very rare but very serious offences against the citizens of Australia, we want to see added two categories. The first is trafficking in dangerous drugs. Who can doubt that the citizens of Australia are concerned at the offences committed against them, their families and their communities by those murderers who traffic in drugs? If the Government, by its measure, is washing its hands on the grounds of some perverted sense of civil liberties for such offenders and saying that it should not make a judgment as to whether to deport such non-citizens of Australia, its action is without foundation or popular support. I believe Australians are concerned about those who traffic in dangerous drugs. There ought to remain in the Migration Act provision for the Minister to make a judgment after weighing up the various aspects of the case. If it is in the best interests of Australia and not grossly offensive to the individual and his family, I believe the Minister ought to be able to make the judgment that that person should be deported from Australia. The other category which we seek to have added would cover a person who had been sentenced for a serious crime. We judge the meaning of 'serious crime' to be a crime which attracts imprisonment for a period of not less than five years. The Minister ought to be able to make the judgment to deport such a person from Australia if he is a non-citizen and only a permanent resident. As a result of this Government's proposal a man who has been a permanent resident in Australia for 10 years, notwithstanding his offence against the citizens of Australia, may assume that he is home and hosed, that the Government cannot touch him, that he cannot be deported. For any organised crime, drug trafficking or any other serious offence a person can serve a sentence, perhaps reduced on appeal, and then go on with his former associations. I believe the Minister ought to have the power, as he has had in recent years, to make a judgment in these matters. So in this the second of the most substantial parts of these Bills before the Senate the Opposition is resolutely opposed to the Minister tying himself and cutting out the ability to make a judgment. In the Committee stage I hope that we can persuade a majority of honourable senators and see the Opposition amendment brought into effect. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.56) —I am grateful that the Opposition, as in the other place, is not basically opposing the Migration Amendment Bill and the Migration (Miscellaneous Amendment) Bill. What the Government is trying to do with this legislation, and I believe is doing, is tidying up and, as Senator Teague said, bringing into a modern form legislation which deals with what were previously described as aliens and the various migrant groups in the community. I can appreciate Senator Teagure's capacity for putting up straw men and knocking them down but he said that under our foreign policy we will have certain relationships with other countries, for example, special relationships with countries such as Papua New Guinea, a former colony of ours, and other members of the Commonwealth and that no-one should believe that this legislation will reflect on that policy. I just make the point to him that this is a migration Bill and it is under the auspices of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). As far as I know, there is no suggestion in any speech by any member of this side of the House or any member of the other side of the House, apart from Senator Teague, that this legislation has anything to do with our relationships with other countries. This is to do with the treatment of people who are non-citizens but permanent residents in this country. If he wants to come in here and try to sow some suspicion in the minds of people outside that in doing this we are somehow altering our approach to foreign affairs, he can do it. He does it on legislation regularly. I remember he did the same thing with the Overseas Students Charge Act. I put it to the Senate that it demonstrates a lack of responsibility, but I suppose we will have to put up with that in every speech. Senator Teague —I was not making any such suggestion. Senator GRIMES —Of course the honourable senator was. He was putting up straw men and knocking them down, the way he always does, but we can put up with that. Let me come to a second point which I believe is important. I only wish that Senator Baume had been in the chamber to hear Senator Teague's remarks-I exclude Senator Martin's remarks-on the problem facing those Ministers who have to deal with drug offenders. When Senator Baume and I were on the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare he was very keen on saying-and, as far as I know, is still keen on saying-that the biggest drug problem in this country was the perception of the drug problem. People such as Senator Teague who speak in this way, feeding off the justified fears of various people in an irresponsible way-I suggest with respect that they have not done it with any sinister intent-are committing the same offence in proposing the amendment the Opposition has put forward. The amendment states: Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs- What is a dangerous drug? No attempt was made by Senator Teague to define this. The six States and two Territories of Australia all have different pieces of legislation. They all have different concepts of what a dangerous drug is. If we go to Queensland, Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen would quite happily gaol people for 10, 15 or 20 years for trafficking in cannabis. In other States, people would not take that view. The Opposition comes into the Federal Parliament and puts forward an amendment which talks about dangerous drugs, without any definition or anything else. The amendment goes on to state: Or has been convicted . . . of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years- Why five years? Why not four years? Why not one year or why not 6 1/4 years? Senator Teague —Why not 10 years? What is magic about 10 years? Senator GRIMES —We will come to the 10 years in a moment. There is no definition of 'an offence' or anything else. There is no definition of the different laws in the different States. There is no worry about the different people who are sitting on the different benches who have very different views. There used to be a magistrate in Wollongong who would have quite happily gaoled drunken drivers for about six or seven years and maybe some of us here would do that too. The Opposition comes into the Senate with a loose amendment of this type. I put it to the Opposition that if its position is put in the way that Senator Martin put it, I can understand it and I can certainly understand her concern and the concern of some members of the Opposition that maybe the Government has gone too far in this regard. I will come to that point in a moment. But if the Opposition comes into this chamber or goes to the public and talks in the terms that Senator Teague used, about hoards of migrants selling large amounts of dangerous drugs, putting the youth of this country in danger, and carrying on in dramatic terms that, it creates a great offence against any attempt to get a rational debate on drugs and the misuse of drugs in this community and it does not assist the Senate or the community at all. It is very easy to get headlines by behaving in this way. It is very easy to get populist applause by making remarks such as that, but I put it to the Opposition that it does not help the people who are trying to legislate and it does not help the people who are trying to reform the system. Senator Teague and others in the other place have talked about the importance of this ministerial discretion to deport and to affect the lives of those who are non-citizens or citizens, but particularly non-citizens who are permanent residents. We believe that it is an important discretion. We believe that it is a discretion that should be restricted. We believe that there should be some firm ground rules and we believe that a migrant country such as ours, which takes in migrants in this way, also has responsibilities as have the migrants who come here. We partly believe this because of the behaviour of some people in the past. Let me talk about a related area which is dear to the hearts of many of us. There was the discretion available-it is still available-relating to the approval of citizenship in this country. There are members of parliament in this country who were previously denied citizenship by Ministers in this place on the most spurious security grounds. I refer to not only members of parliament; many other people in this community, because of the hysteria of the times and because of the sorts of reports that used to be made to Ministers, were refused citizenship in this country. The same thing applies to people who were deported. It was out of a desire to protect the rights of such people-they have rights just as much as citizens and this community have rights-that this Government and this particular Minister sought to amend this legislation to provide what were considered to be more fair rules, to provide what would be considered to be a more basic civil libertarian approach to this problem. I point out to honourable senators that while the so-called 10-year rule applies to the conduct of non-citizens under proposed new section 14 (1) of the legislation, there are, I believe, compelling humanitarian and compassionate reasons why this should be so and there are reasons why the Minister and the Department should have strict guidelines and should be more strictly confined in how they use their discretion. As someone who was, for a short time, the Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and who had to make the decision on whether to deport or not to deport, I can really have some sympathy for the present Minister, and previous Ministers who have had to deal with it all the time. This is quite distinct from the conviction section under proposed new section 14 (2) of the legislation. I do not think that honourable senators opposite should interfere in this area. I make the following points-they are the same sorts of points that the Minister has made-that a large migrant country such as Australia must at some stage accept responsibility for the conduct of migrants who are accepted for permanent residence. That may be offensive to some people who believe that there is this great distinction between people who have not been born here but may have lived here most of their lives, and people who are born here. But we do have the situation under the amendment that if someone is convicted for possession of or trafficking in dangerous drugs-whatever drug that is-and is sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five years under the legislation-the person may have been here for 20 or 25 years and the conviction may have been 20 or 25 years back-a Minister, using this discretion in an untrammelled way, can deport that person. We do not believe that that is right. We believe that 10 years is a reasonable period. We believe, and the Minister believes, that 10 years is a substantial period for the conduct of a permanent resident to be vetted by the Government and for a person's security risk to be assessed. I most certainly share that view. Maybe some people think it should be 10 years; maybe other people think it should be 15 years. I certainly do not believe that it should be life, as Senator Teague and others apparently believe it should be. The Minister also believes that regardless of the deportation provisions in the Migration Act the criminal justice system in this country should be adequately equipped, and I believe it is to deal with people who constitute a security threat. If it is not , we should do something about it and not try to pick out one group of people with whom we want to take the easy way out and deport, no matter how long they have been here, under the circumstances that the Opposition apparently wants us to adopt. We also believe that a permanent resident whose conduct is suspected of being a threat to security has the right to expect that within 10 years of his grant of permanent residence that conduct will be asessed and a decision made whether to deport him or her then, not to have it drag on and on. The amendments to the deportation section, proposed new sections 12 and 14, limit deportations for the first 10 years. That was clear Government policy. It was Government policy before the election, it has been government policy and remains so. I believe that the Minister has attempted to tighten up this discretionary area to protect the rights of people, citizens and non-citizens, and to ensure that everyone understands what the rules are, that everyone understands what the position will be in the future and, at the same time, provide a provision to protect the country in the way that Senator Teague and others want it to be protected. Legislation such as this will always be kept under review. Of course, the operation of legislation such as this will be kept under review and I dare say it will be kept under review by the Opposition as well as the Government. But we believe that it is a reasonable and sensible approach to take in this part of the twentieth century. I am glad that the Opposition welcomes the rest of the legislation which removes some of the distinctions which have worried not only citizens but also non-citizens and many members of our large migrant community in the past. I thank the Opposition, up to now at least at the second reading stage, for its co-operation in the passage of this legislation which I believe, despite the remarks of some honourable senators opposite, does represent an advance and a recognition that this is a changed country. It also recognises the contribution, in an indirect way, of so many migrant groups to this community. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1983 Clauses 1 to 10-by leave-taken together. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.11) —I rise to clarify some remarks I made at the second reading stage. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) said that I had set up an aunt sally of my own accusing the Government, by inference, of removing in its foreign policy some of the special relationships that Australia has with the Commonwealth or countries in our region. I rise briefly to point out that that was not my accusation. I was not seeking to accuse the Government of denying completely the special relationships in our region. Rather, some of those people who are listening to this debate could assume that the bipartisan support for removing these distinctions between persons of various original nationalities may infer some watering down of our foreign policy. For the sake of those members of the public who might be anxious that that is the view not only of the Government but also the Opposition, I made the rejoinder that no false assumption should be made that because certain discriminations are being removed by this legislation with regard to the original nationalities of persons that that has any inference whatsoever to the foreign policy of the Government or the Opposition. I think perhaps that the Minister was oversensitive and he certainly misunderstood my intention. I made only that brief rejoinder. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.14) —I merely say that I do not believe that Senator Teague has helped the situation very much. The Migration Amendment Bill 1983 and the Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 have been debated in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. No one in his right mind, except Senator Teague, would have ever assumed or drawn the inference that the passage of this legislation has anything to do with our international relations or anything to do with our relationships with various groups or countries other than our own. I am sorry if Senator Teague is somehow offended that I rose and said that, by bringing up this matter, he was doing what he had done in the past, that is, imputing some motives to the Government which did not exist. If he was not doing that, I cannot for the life of me think why he bothered to say it at all. However, that is up to Senator Teague. Maybe he was just padding out his speech, I do not know. Perhaps he thought he had to speak for more than 10 minutes or something like that. However, I repeat-I believe Senator Teague repeated what he had said-that this is a migration Bill. It has nothing to do with our relationships with the Commonwealth, the Association of South East Asian Nations, Papua New Guinea, the Pacific nations, the Upper Volta or anywhere else. That is the point I wished to make. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.15) —I would like to make some comments about clause 10. Unfortunately representations have been made to me since the matter has been dealt with in the House of Representatives. I am sorry to raise this matter at this late stage. I do not intend to move an amendment. I suggest to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) that there is a serious illogicality about the provisions of clause 10. They should be looked at and repaired. The provision in clause 10 relates to people who are non-citizens who have been here for less than 10 years and are convicted of crimes. One of the requirements is that they can be deported if the offence is an offence for which the person was sentenced to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than one year. I hope the reference to 'sentenced to death' will soon be removed when the two recalcitrant States of New South Wales and Western Australia, which still have the death sentence on their statute books, remove this objectionable provision. My concern is with the imprisonment period of not less than one year. It has been put to me that it is quite illogical to say: 'Yes, there is one offence for which there is an imprisonment period of one year'. I must point out that this seems to be a great improvement on what was previously in the Act. The difficult situation that now arises is that if a person is convicted of 10 offences and is given six months imprisonment on each charge or a person is convicted of six offences and is given 10 months imprisonment on each charge, that person will go to gaol for five years. That person is not caught by this legislation. But a person who is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one year-he might not be in gaol for one year; he may be in gaol for only six months or so-- Senator Chipp —For one offence. Senator MISSEN —Yes, for one offence. That person can be deported. But the person-- Senator Teague —Subject to deportation. Senator MISSEN —He is subject to deportation. But the person who has been guilty of a number of offences-possibly that indicates a greater contempt of the law of this country than someone who makes one mistake-is not subject to the same provision. I believe that this point has substance. I believe that the Government, even at this late stage, ought to consider changing the legislation so that provision is included in it which covers the situation I have mentioned. After all, a person might be here for less than 10 years and might be sentenced to gaol for four or five years. Surely in that situation he ought to be subject to deportation rather than the person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year. I put it to the Minister that there is substance in this objection. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.19) —I appreciate the point that Senator Missen has made. I make the following points: First of all, deportation involves people who are deported for serious offences rather than petty offences. I suppose that the term of a year is an attempt, albeit a clumsy attempt under our legal system, to draw a distinction between what is a-- Senator Missen —Especially when you take the argument you raised a few minutes ago about the attitudes of different States. Senator GRIMES —Yes, the question of what is a serious offence or not is raised. I put it to the Committee that we may have some State in this country which will start putting people in gaol for a year for vagrancy. I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) because I understand the problem Senator Missen is facing. As for those people who may commit 10 offences and be imprisoned for six months on each charge or those who have committed six offences and are to be imprisoned for 10 months on each charge, I remind the Senate that when people are in gaol for that period they are extending their 10 years of permanent residence in Australia. In the case raised by Senator Missen I think it would be 15 years. Senator Chipp —You start counting again. Senator GRIMES —One does not count the periods when they are locked up. I appreciate that this is a difficult area. I do not think that anyone in this place pretends that the whole area of deportation and what should be considered a serious crime and what should not be is not a difficult area. I suppose that there are many views in the community. I reckon that there would be more extreme views in the community than one would ever find in this place. There are some who think that we should deport pick-pockets or perhaps a better example would be deportation for a first offence of shoplifting; there are others who believe there should be no deportation at all. I can understand that difficulty. As I said when winding up the second reading debate, this is an attempt to bring in some sort of rationality. I think that Senator Missen conceded that this was better than what was there before. I dare say that we can do better still. I shall refer Senator Missen's remarks to the Minister and the Department to see what we can do about them. Clauses agreed to. Clause 11 (Deportation of non-citizens upon security grounds after report by Commissioner). Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.21) —I move: Page 4, clause 11, paragraph (a), after proposed new sub-section 14 (1), insert the following new sub-section: '' '(1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person'.''. I should like to refer to the second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and the philosophy behind the Bill in relation to deportation. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: The legislation does not define the basis on which decisions are to be taken; that is the purpose of the policy. Experience has shown that it is not feasible, nor do I believe that it is proper, to define by legislation precisely who must be deported from Australia. Discretion must continue to be vested in the Minister to consider each case on its merits. The exercise of discretion under the Act must continue to be guided by statements of government policy. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) representing him in this chamber made comments to that effect in replying to the second reading debate. However, in the introductory second reading speech, the Minister went on to say: The Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non- citizens whose serious crimes show that they are a threat to the community. The Government must retain the legislative power to remove criminals and undesirables who have chosen not to commit themselves fully to Australia or who, through their own criminal actions, do not qualify for membership of the Australian community. That is a statement with which the Opposition would certainly agree. I draw attention to a statement a little further on in the speech, however, which says: The overwhelming majority of non-citizens who settle in this country are law- abiding members of the community and have a right to expect, after 10 years of lawful residence, that they will not be expelled. Again, the Opposition would support that sentiment. However, there is some conflict in that sentiment and some of the other comments that have been made in debate. I wish to quote one other sentence and then to return to that matter. The Minister said: I must emphasise that the purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community. I emphasise that myself: The purpose of deporting a criminal is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community. So the Government has decided to keep the power of deportation but it has made a couple of fairly arbitrary decisions of its own. Senator Grimes, in response to the second reading debate, asked why, in our amendment, we said, for example, that there should be a right to deportation of someone sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years. He asked 'Why five years?' One could as easily say to the Government 'Why 10 years as the period of immunity?' That might seem an arbitrary figure. It is arbitrary in the sense that the Government has picked a figure, but then 10 years, perhaps , notionally is a period which seems reasonable. At the same time, a period of five years might seem arbitrary, but notionally we suggest that it is reasonable , because people who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years have, on the whole, committed fairly serious crimes. I draw out some of the contrasts in the penalties for which people are liable under the provisions of the Government's Bill and some of the provisions to which we have referred which are not in the Bill but which we think should be in it. For example, the Bill gives the Minister the right to deportation for someone who has offended against section 6 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, or against section 86 (1), which carries a maximum imprisonment penalty of three years. There are two cases that the Govenment has specified in this Bill which are less than five years, so I would think that in saying five years we were actually not being super- restrictive against the Government's view but being rather generous. We were guided by a couple of other sections, to which I have already referred, that is section 78 of the Crimes Act, relating to espionage, which carries a penalty of seven years imprisonment, and section 81, which relates to harbouring spies, which also attracts a penalty of seven years imprisonment. In looking at those sorts of serious crimes, which the Government has, either deliberately or inadvertently, left out of this reference to the Crimes Act, we thought that five years was reasonable in those circumstances. The Minister is very well aware that one makes a decision such as that somewhere along the line, so I do not think that the period of five years in itself is an objection. In fact, someone who receives a penalty of five years has committed a serious crime , and the Government would have to agree with that, as I have said, because some of the offences that it has chosen to single out and include actually carry penalties of only two or three years. On the matter of the dangerous drug objection, I agree with a lot that the Minister for Social Security said in response to the second reading debate on the subject of people having different ideas about what is a dangerous drug, and we will find some variance between the States as to what penalties the same offences carry. Nevertheless, I point out that after all, we are talking about a ministerial discretion. The amendment says 'the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of the person'. Our concern in moving the amendment is to widen the Minister's discretion. We say that in narrowing the Minister's discretion to the extreme degree that the amending Bill does, the Government has made a mistake. It has left out crimes of a like nature to those that are included, and it has too far restricted itself on ministerial discretion. I remind the Minister that in the second reading speech the point was made that discretion must continue to be vested in the Minister to consider each case on its merits. Our concern is that the Minister will not have, when the point comes, enough discretion. The Opposition will be moving to a division on this amendment. The Minister in the House of Representatives gave an utterly unsatisfactory response to the amendment. There is nothing in the debate on the amendment, which I have read carefully, which would deflect me or the Opposition from our view on its seriousness. If the Minister in this place wants to say that there may be good intent in this but he wants to nit-pick about, for example, dangerous drugs, it is up to him to declare whether the Government will accept the thrust of our amendment, which is that the present amending Bill is too restrictive, that the Minister will need more discretion and that it would be accepted by the Australian community that a Minister for immigration ought to have discretion in relation to people who, as the Minister said in his second reading speech, have chosen not to commit themselves to this country even after a period of 10 years. I do not have any difficulty with the term 'dangerous drug'. To me, that means drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Senator Chipp —Tobacco. Senator MARTIN —That is a drug. I would not include it in the dangerous drug category we are discussing here. Just as the Government can notionally come up with 10 years as the period after which people will generally not be liable to deportation, we can have a sense of what dangerous drugs are. If the Government wants to spell that out, it has the opportunity here or on reconsideration in the other place, and it is free to do so. But I challenge the Government to turn its attention, at least in the Senate, in our House of review, to the intention and the thrust of the amendment, which is meant to be helpful to the Minister. It is meant to aid the objective, stated by the Government in the second reading speech, that the Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non-citizens whose serious crimes show that they are a threat to the community. I hope that the Government will accept that our amendment is in accord with the intention of the Bill as outlined by the Government. I hope that it will accept the Opposition's bona fides and agree to this amendment or else, maybe here-there have been two months between debate in the House of Representatives and debate here-put forward an alternative amendment in the same sense but with some wording that the Government may wish to claim is superior. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.31) —We are debating the Migration Amendment Bill 1983, which changes the discretionary power of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to deport people. This legislation proposes that a non-citizen, that is, a person who was not born here and who has chosen not to be naturalised even though he could have been naturalised but who has been a legal resident of Australia for 10 years or more, could not be deported unless he is convicted of an offence of a national security nature. We are talking about a class of people who have been here for the required time, who could have been naturalised but who in many cases, for good reasons to them, have chosen not to renounce their former country and accept the oath of allegiance to Australia and therefore have chosen not to be naturalised. In passing, I make the point that I respect the decision of those people who choose not to be naturalised. I hope that they will change that decision. Once they have made the overt decision that it is in their interests not to be naturalised, I believe that they cannot rely on the privileges of citizenship if ever they get into trouble. I think that is a fair proposition which they go into with quite open minds. This legislation means that the Minister's discretionary power to deport people on the basis of criminal conviction will no longer apply after a person has been here 10 years, regardless of whether that person is naturalised, unless the person is charged with offences involving sedition, treachery or treason. Senator Missen —Convicted, not charged. Senator CHIPP —I am sorry; convicted of offences involving sedition, treachery or treason. I thank Senator Missen. The Opposition's amendment wants the Minister to retain discretionary power over deporting non-residents after 10 years in two circumstances, one of which is where a person has been convicted of drug trafficking. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, quite properly points out the difference of approach and attitude to and definition of what are dangerous drugs throughout Australia. I remind him that what Mr Bjelke- Petersen thinks of marihuana is totally irrelevant because we are now dealing with Commonwealth jurisdiction. Senator Walters —Not for Queenslanders. Senator Peter Baume —For the purpose of this argument. Senator CHIPP —For the purpose of this argument, we are dealing with an amendment to a Commonwealth Act and it is the Commonwealth's prerogative to determine what it believes to be dangerous drugs. Mr Bjelke-Petersen's view, or a State Premier's view, or anyone's view of what a dangerous drug might be is irrelevant. Senator Missen —That is not right. Senator CHIPP —Senator Missen says that is not right and I always respect his interjections, particularly on legal matters. It is my understanding that the Commonwealth could define specifically in legislation, in particular in this legislation, the kinds of drugs in which a person has been trafficking. Senator Missen —This amendment does not do that. Senator CHIPP —I agree with that. This amendment does not do it. If the Commonwealth Government took this amendment on board, it could so amend the Act to overcome the proper objections that Senator Grimes mentioned. That is the point I am getting at. The second prong of the amendment relates to an offence with a sentence of five years or more. The Opposition believes that 10 years of lawful residence by a non-citizen is not enough of a contribution to society to waive the threat of deportation. As I understand it, the Government rejects the amendment on the ground that it would create a discretionary sub-class of non- citizens who would be subject to deportation. I remind the Government that that sub-class exists now; this Bill will not remove it. The sub-class is restricted to people convicted of offences of sedition, treachery or treason. What the Opposition wants to do is to increase the potential numbers of that sub-class to cover people convicted of drug trafficking or any other offence which carries a sentence of five years or more. This is one of those fascinating arguments one strikes in politics where one can see good points on both sides. I respect what the Opposition is putting, yet at the same time I acknowledge the wisdom of the Government's refusal to accept it. We have to make decisions in this place and on balance we lean to the Opposition's view and we will vote with the Opposition on the amendment. We do not make a big deal of it because we concede the judgment of the Government. We support the Opposition's amendment which, of course, will ensure that it will be passed. It will then go to the House of Representatives and we hope that the serious debate that has contributed to this question in this chamber will be contemplated by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and the Government's Immigration Committee and that they might reconsider their stance on this to contemplate accepting the Senate amendment before returning the legislation to the Senate later. If, however, they choose to be obstinate then, while the Australian Democrats would wish on balance the amendment to be incorporated into the legislation, we would certainly not adopt a barricade position. We would accept what the Lower House decides on this. We hope that the sensible and sensitive debate that has taken place here will commend itself to the Government and to members of the House of Representatives. Let me give an example of a person born in, say, a non-English speaking country who migrates here and has been here for 12 years. He overtly decides for some reason or another not to take out citizenship. Let us further assume that he has been involved in drug trafficking for five or six years, importing drugs or growing cannabis sativa somewhere where it grows well. I will not name a State; there are plenty of places in Australia where it grows well. Let us assume that he has made a lot of money and that in his twelfth year in Australia, still unnaturalised, he gets caught, arrested and convicted. Why should he be able to rely on the fact that he has been here for more than 10 years to prevent his deportation? Why should we hamstring the Minister and say: 'No, you can no longer deport this person'? Some dreadful creatures come to mind who have been in the business of drugs, mentioned by royal commissions, and who fit into this category. Some of them deported themselves before they could be brought within the jurisdiction of Australian law. Let us assume that a person is caught here. I do not necessarily have to mention names in this debate, but people named in the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and other royal commissions are well known. They came from non-English speaking countries. They were involved in the Mr Asia syndicate. They imported millions of dollars worth of heroin. To my knowledge, they were not naturalised. It is preposterous that such people might be found guilty in an Australian court and yet the Minister would be powerless to deport them. As I understand it, the Opposition amendment proposes to remedy that. To put a finer point on it, why should the Australian taxpayer be asked to keep such offenders in Australian gaols for long periods if the offences are serious? After they are released from gaol, why should they be allowed-unless they are totally rehabilitated-to rejoin the Australian community and prey on it again? There are a great many Australian-born habitual criminals, totally amoral and immoral, who prey for profit on weaker groups in our society and whom, if I were a Minister, I would like to deport. Unhappily, the law does not give us an opportunity to deport Australian-born people. There would be no place to which we could deport them. However, I can see no argument whatsoever that could be advanced, or has been advanced to this point, for why the Minister should not, in any case he chooses, have the option of deporting people who have come here of their own free will, chosen not to renounce allegiance to a former country but to retain their former citizenship, entered into a life of crime and been convicted. For that reason, the Democrats will support the amendment moved by the Liberal Party. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.42) —Since it seems fairly clear that the Opposition amendment will probably be carried and there is to be a division, I must set out some views. I will certainly vote for the amendment the Opposition has moved. I saw it only this morning. I regret that in this Parliament it is impossible to keep up with the things that are going on. Therefore, I would certainly not take my colleagues by surprise by voting against the amendment. However, I think it is a very sloppy amendment. Although I will vote for it, I hope that a lot of very careful consideration will be given to it before it is dealt with in the other place. I recognise that there is a lot of sense in the views expressed by Senator Chipp. This amendment would provide that under two certain circumstances discretion would remain with the Minister to deport people. I make the preliminary comment that the amendment is being inserted in clause 11, which has as its heading 'Deportation of non-citizens upon security grounds after report by Commissioner'. It is very difficult to see what the content of the amendment necessarily has to do with security grounds. Perhaps the amendment should be inserted somewhere else in the Bill. That is the point I am making here. For example, trafficking in dangerous drugs is generally highly offensive, but it may have nothing whatsoever to do with security, unless we take security in some sort of vague sense as affecting the general well-being and security of the country. But that is not what is intended by security grounds. The problem as I see it-one that strangely has not been raised on this side of the House-is that in a sense a penalty is being imposed retrospectively. This amendment states: (1A) Where a person who is a non-citizen has either before or after the commencement of this sub-section been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs, or has been convicted in Australia of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, the Minister may, subject to this section, order the deportation of that person. The amendment sets out two specific areas where the Minister may use such discretion. Senator Chipp has said that if 'trafficking in dangerous drugs' is taken wrongly and the States take a very savage view that a drug is dangerous, although Senator Chipp or I may not think such a drug is dangerous, we can solve this problem by excluding it from our Acts. That is a very indirect way of doing it. Meanwhile, the person engaging in such trafficking has probably long since been deported. Senator Peter Baume —Is there a regulation making power under the Act, and could that be used to overcome problems? Senator MISSEN —I think it could, but there is no provision in this amendment for regulations to be made. The amendment as it stands does not cover that. But perhaps the point that Senator Baume has made is one that could be covered in a reconsideration of the terms of the amendment. My first point is that the amendment creates a retrospective penalty. Senator Teague —No, but they are now subject to deportation. Senator MISSEN —They are subject to general deportation. There is a specific provision in this amendment for deportation at the discretion of the Minister if a person has been convicted of trafficking in dangerous drugs. If a chemist sells by error to another chemist some drugs which under the national health provisions he is not entitled to sell, it may be said that he is trafficking in dangerous drugs. It would depend on the definition of dangerous drugs in a particular State or Territory. He may be convicted, but he may not be sent to gaol; he may be given a bond. On the other hand, the second leg of this amendment deals with persons convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than five years. It can be inferrred from the length of imprisonment that it is for a serious offence. My main worry is with the provision concerning offenders who have trafficked in dangerous drugs. It is very easy in this community to say that trafficking is a bad thing; it is. Dangerous drugs are terrible. Generally speaking, the community is quite right in its great abhorrence of those things, but they are not defined clearly. We could find very great differences in the way in which the various States treat offences. We are then met with the fact that the Minister has a discretion. Of course he can say that he regards the law of the State of X as crazy and refuse to deport on convictions made under that law. I do not know what that might do for State- Federal relations. But the Parliament has generally resisted excessive discretionary powers for Ministers. Those of us who have served on committees of the Parliament scrutinising legislation and regulations are concerned about excessive discretionary powers. I know that the legislation is taking away discretions rather than giving them, but the discretion given by this amendment seems to be very vague. I think there are problems with the amendment. It seems to have been drafted somewhat on the run. I will certainly vote for it because I think the matter deserves further consideration, but I think that since there will be a division on the matter one must make clear one's reservations about the language of the amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.47) —As Senator Missen has said, this amendment and this clause are about discretions. The Opposition wants to broaden considerably the discretion of the Minister under the legislation. The Government-quite unashamedly and as we have said before coming into government we wanted to do-is trying to narrow down that discretion because there is no question but that in the past the discretionary power of the Minister to deport and to approve citizenship has been abused. We all know of cases of abuse. There have been considerable differences between the Minister and, for instance, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and the courts in very recent times. The Minister has overruled the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the courts and used his discretion under the legislation. I make it clear, first, that I am not questioning the motives of those who are bringing forward this amendment. I specifically said that in the second reading debate. One is in the old position that all of us in this place end up in when looking at an amendment of this type. As I asked in the second reading debate, what on earth is a dangerous drug? That point was raised by Senator Missen. He added another point when he asked: 'What is trafficking?' They are very serious questions in a country which is made up of six States and a couple of Territories, all with differing laws. I would have no hesitation in saying that if the discretion to decide what was a dangerous drug and what was trafficking were in the hands of Senator Martin or certain other people in this place I would not have any worries about it. But it would not always be in the hands of Senator Martin. There are other people in this place to whom I would not give this discretion or any other discretion. Therefore, I believe that we have to narrow it down as much as possible. That, in fact, is what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has tried to do. He has tried to do that particularly in this area of drugs and drug trafficking because that is an area which in the past has obviously created great difficulty. As I said, again in the second reading speech, one of the problems we have is the way people approach the so-called drug problem. We are always trying to get at 'the problem' by attacking it through the penal clauses of legislation, including penal clauses of the Migration Act in this case. Too often people involved in politics believe they are tapping the populist views of the community by making the sorts of speeches that are sometimes made, suggesting how these creatures should be thrown out of the country and that if they are not willing to accept our citizenship they should not be protected by our laws, et cetera. Honourable senators have all heard that over and over again and we will continue to hear it over and over again in this place. Sure it goes down well in the community but in the meantime the drug situation in this country stays the same or gets worse because the real methods of overcoming the problem certainly involve the certainty of detection and certainly involve the certainty of penalty. But they also involve so many other things concerning the attitudes of those who take drugs and those who do not. If people kid themselves that passing a loose amendment like this, which talks about dangerous drugs without defining them, which talks about trafficking without defining it, which does not take into consideration the differences between the various States and does not take into consideration the effect of the varying attitudes of the community on the Minister who is making the discretion, will take even a small step towards solving the so-called drug problem then they are having themselves on. If we have to weigh the effectiveness of legislation and the potential for offence against civil liberties or the privacy of people, be they citizens or not, then I come down on the side of the Minister; I come down on the side of the Government. If this amendment is passed-as it seems likely to be-then I agree with Senator Missen and Senator Chipp that we will certainly have to go away and have a hard look at it and see how we can redefine the situation if the Parliament insists on that being done. As for the second part of the legislation, as to whether someone should be deported after being convicted of an offence which carries a penalty of imprisonment for a period of not less than five years, I merely raise the points that I raised in the second reading speech. This is a matter of fine judgment. We should not put an arbitarary figure in the legislation to broaden the capacity of the Minister to deport. It is a matter for judgment what offences should or should not be included in this area and how much responsibility a migrant country, such as ours, should have. We accept people as migrants and as permanent citizens. We do not have rigid citizenship provisions like some other countries for checking up on people who come into the community and for checking on the capacity of our system of justice and our system of detection of crime to monitor what is happening with these permanent residents. I think we get onto dangerous ground, as we have been on dangerous ground in the past, when we set arbitrary penalties of this type, particularly in view of the fact that we have a system of justice which varies so much between the various States. However, if the Senate insists on the amendment the Government certainly will consider its implications and obviously will have to consider the intent and the motives of the Opposition in moving the amendment to see whether we cannot come to some compromise with those who are so concerned. I certainly believe that we will need a better, more tight and less sloppy amendment than the one that has been moved. I presume the amendment was moved to make a point and to try to get the Government to change its point of view, but the amendment will need much more refining if it is ever to go into legislation. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(11.55) —I shall be brief. I was disturbed by some of the words used by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in his response. At the beginning of his response in the second reading debate the Minister accused Senator Teague of setting up straw men in order to knock them down. I suggest that that is what the Minister has just done. He attacked us on the grounds that we were suggesting that this amendment in relation to the deportation of non-citizens could be some sort of solution to the drug problem. We have not suggested that it is a solution to the drug problem at all; we have just supported the Government's sentiments, expressed in the second reading speech, that the Government must be able to protect the Australian community from non-citizens whose serious crimes show they are a threat to the community. That is the spirit and the intent of the amendment. I make that point because I will not have it suggested that we have been suggesting that non-citizens are the source of the drug problem in Australia. We have not said that. It was suggested in debate in the House of Representatives, although it was suggested by Government members. No member of the Opposition said anything of the sort. I reject again on behalf of the Opposition that there is anything of that sense in what I have said about our amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.56) —I am sorry that Senator Martin took such offence. I made it clear at the start of my remarks that I believed her motives were pure and that the Opposition's intentions were honourable. But in light of the fact that so much is made in the Opposition's amendment of dangerous drugs and trafficking-that is such a large element of the amendment-I felt bound to point out that it is terribly easy to come in with amendments of this type, which are vague and sloppy, to make remarks about protecting the citizens of this country from creatures-I think that was one of the words used-and to get support for attitudes and amendments like these, giving the impression to ordinary citizens of this country that by so doing we are making a hell of a difference to the drug problem, as it is called, including the amount of drug trafficking. One has to weigh the effectiveness of the legislation in that regard against the potential capacity of the present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) or future Ministers to use that discretion in such a way as to create more difficulties and more offences against civil liberties and more problems than are caused by the problems that we are trying to attack. That is the only point I wish to make. We will certainly consider the amendment moved by the Opposition, as we must, but I make the point that we will have to consider it and put it into proper legislative form if it is ever to be properly a part of the legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Martin's amendment) be inserted . The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator K. W. Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Mason, C. V. J. Chipp, D. L. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterEvans, Jack Reid, M. E. (Teller)Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Scott, D. B. Bolkus, N. Crichton-Brown, N. A. McClelland, DouglasMacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Townley, M. Ryan, S. M. Kilgariff, B. F. Maguire, G. R. Haines, J. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bills-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bills reported with amendment; reports adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Date resumed from 19 October 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(12.07) — Before proceeding to the second reading debate of the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill it might be helpful to the Senate if I explain the way in which it is intended to deal with the Appropriation Bills. Following the second reading of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill the Senate will proceed in Committee of the Whole to consider the votes for the parliamentary departments in the order in which they were considered by Estimates Committee A. Following the normal practice, honourable senators will be given an opportunity to move motions in relation to those departments as well as seek further information. After the Senate has dealt with the Appropriation ( Parliamentary Departments) Bill the votes in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) will be considered together in the normal way in the same groupings and order as the departmental Estimates referred to Estimates committees A, B, C, D, E and F respectively. To assist the Committee of the Whole in its consideration of the Estimates, a schedule of departmental Estimates has been distributed to honourable senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That leave be given to honourable senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the report of Estimates Committee A; that any motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the Chair; and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in the Committee of the Whole. Senator Chaney-Mr Chairman, I just seek clarification. Are we dealing still with the parliamentary departments as set out in group A-the Senate and so on? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —That is right. Senator Chaney-Is it currently open for any honourable senator to raise matters relating to the Senate, the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and so on? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes. Bill agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The question is: That the Bill be reported. Senator Sir John Carrick-I take a point of order. As I understand it, we are dealing only with the Parliament at the moment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes. Senator Sir John Carrick-Is only that part of the Bill being reported? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes. It is a separate Bill. Senator Chaney-There is obviously great satisfaction within the Senate about the state of the parliamentary appropriations. There was just some concern among Opposition senators that we might be dealing with appropriations for departments other than the Parliament. But that is not the case. I understand that the Bill has now been dealt with by the Committee. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 October 1983. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: (1) That clauses 1 to 9 and Schedule 1 be postponed till after the consideration of Schedule 2. (2) That, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in Schedule 2 be considered in the same groupings and order as the departmental estimates referred to Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F, respectively, as follows: Page Division in Bill No. Department Amount $ Group A 69 400-404 Industry and Commerce 178,943,000 76 500-516 Prime Minister and Cabinet 73,855,000 40 287-290 Employment and Industrial Relations 518,441,000 24 220-224 Communications 376,673,000 Group B 91 560-561 Social Security 653,298,000 66 360-365 Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 153,455,000 62 352-356 Housing and Construction 313,106,000 30 245 Buildings and Works (Defence) 150,538,000 30 246 Repairs and Maintenance (Defence) 77,916,000 30 248 Housing for Servicemen (Defence) 5,300,000 34 258 Buildings and Works (Defence Support) 59,331,000 34 259 Repairs and Maintenance (Defence Support) 13,823,000 54 325-329 Health 493,045,000 Group C 81 520-525 Resources and Energy 101,878,000 108 640-644 Trade 301,577,000 114 670-678 Treasury 458,586,000 72 490-497 Primary Industry 146,912,000 44 304-306 Finance 59,287,000 47 310 Advance to the Minister for Finance 150,000,000 47 312 Minister for Finance-Special Funds 53,000,000 Group D 35 270-284 Education and Youth Affairs 730,303,000 101 590-592 Sport, Recreation and Tourism 43,600,000 85 540-554 Science and Technology 521,304,000 57 330-349 Home Affairs and Environment 152,989,000 9 120-125 Aboriginal Affairs 185,775,000 Apprpriation Bill (No. 1) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Appropriation Bill (No. 1) Group E 15 165-192 Attorney-General's 208,671,000 94 575-581 Special Minister of State 207,955,000 48 315-319 Foreign Affairs 910,031,000 27 230-243 Defence 4,273,981,000 31 255-257 Defence Support 310,333,000 Group F 118 690-693 Veterans' Affairs 707,504,000 111 664-668 Transport 183,810,000 21 193-194 Aviation 430,812,000 12 130-132 Administrative Services 363,091,000 30 250 Rent (Defence) 56,200,000 30 252 Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Defence) 22,000,000 34 260 Rent (Defence Support) 1,423,000 34 261 Acquisition of Sites and Buildings (Defence Support) 310,000 103 620-628 Territories and Local Government 141,997,000 (3) That leave be given to senators to move motions expressing opinions or making recommendations based on the reports of the Estimates Committees; that such motions be moved when the appropriate vote is under consideration; that where more than one motion is proposed in relation to a particular vote, the motions may be debated together, but in all cases a motion or motions shall be disposed of before the question is put on the vote before the Chair; and that any resolutions be reported when the Chairman makes his report to the President at the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the Whole. Schedule 2. GROUP A Department of Industry and Commerce Proposed expenditure, $178,943,000. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I remind the Committee that, in addition to dealing with the votes in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) which will be the question under consideration before the Chair, those votes under Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for the relevant Department may also be discussed at the same time. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.14) —I take the opportunity afforded by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to express some opinion in relation to the vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce which amounts to $178,943,000. I think members of the Senate, certainly on the Opposition side , and members of the community view with some concern the Government's lack of commitment to honouring its election promises in the small business and manufacturing areas. I think that the Government since coming to office has tried to develop policies in isolation. It has looked only at particular departments rather than at the effects that some policies could have on other departments. For example, we will be faced with an unemployment rate of over 12 per cent in February next year. We are seeing industry within Australia being virtually wiped out by wage increases and competition from overseas. However, we are not seeing an integrated approach from this Government. In other words, policies on wages, employment, industrial relations and taxation should be an integral part of industry and commerce. Senator Button is probably doing his best to espouse good policies in relation to industry and commerce. However, those policies have had absolutely no effect because they have been outweighed by what is happening in areas such as industrial relations and, particularly, taxation. I remind him of what was said in the Australian Labor Party's policy speech. It stated: We cannot satisfactorily rebuild our workforce unless at the same time we rebuild our manufacturing base. This objective requires measures to deal with both the immediate crisis-there is no excuse for delay-and the long term situation. It is disappointing that we did not see in this Budget any measures designed to attack the immediate crisis. The possible exception may be within the steel industry whose delicate situation Senator Button and the Labor Party may have further exacerbated. However, jobs continue to be lost in the manufacturing area. We all recognise that the small business area has the potential to generate jobs and we are disappointed that more was not done to develop a greater capability in this area within the Department of Industry and Commerce or to establish a portfolio to deal with small business. Let us look at the figures. Small businesses can generate more jobs per sales dollar than larger companies. This fact is recognised not only in Australia but also around the world. Let us look at the United States of America because our situation is not all that different from what prevails in that country. For example, sales of $1 billion by small companies in that country create more jobs than $37 billion worth of sales by large companies. Small companies are very much more capable of being innovative. The figures suggest that they are four times more innovative than medium to large firms, and 20 times more innovative than large firms. So the facts speak for themselves. Small entrepreneurial operations have the capacity to generate jobs. Although the Labor Government acknowledges that something must be done in the short term, it is doing very little to generate jobs in the small business area against the background of rising unemployment which is forecast to be over 12 per cent in February next year. There is a need for a change of attitude and a recognition of the importance of small business and the wealth that these businesses can create within the community. Unfortunately, the Labor Party seeks to attack all forms of wealth. However, it does not seek to adopt measures which create wealth within the community. We must encourage enterprise. There are within the Australian community 617,000 enterprises-or 81.8 per cent of all enterprises-employing one to four persons, and 93 per cent of all enterprises have fewer than 10 employees . The contribution from small business is very significant. We are seeing continual attacks on the business sector. In fact, one insidious measure now being undertaken is the use of the exchange rate. What effect is that having? It is leading to an over-valued currency and creating problems for our export industries. Already we see pressures being placed on the coal, iron ore and wool industries. The major importing countries of these materials are looking elsewhere, to South America and to Africa. If we look at last week's wool sales, we see that the price of wool is in the doldrums. Why? It is in the doldrums because of an over-valued currency. Further, there has been a dramatic promotional program by man made fibre industries in the United States to counter the effects of an earlier increase in wool usage. What has the Australian Labor Party done? It promised $28m for wool promotion, pre-election, and delivered only $20m. That was a broken promise to the extent of $8m. In recent weeks we have seen dramatic falls in prices for livestock. The prices for lambs and cattle are down. A lot of this is directly attributable to an over-valued exchange rate. Exporters are being asked to pay the price for the ineptitude of this Government. On the other hand, the Government has hit exporters both ways. It has introduced meat inspection charge levies which are completely unrelated to costs and make the export position so much more untenable. I think we have to acknowledge that the drop in the inflation rate to 9.2 per cent is one of the benefits of the wages pause. The Fraser Government introduced that pause. Since then what has happened? Wages have escalated; they are out of control. This will lead to increases in business costs. The small business area will be first affected by this rise in costs. What is the Labor Party doing? Essentially it is pump-priming the public sector and hitting the private sector. The Labor Party has acknowledged the effect that high wages are having on industry. The Treasury Budget Statement No. 2 said: 'A wages outcome higher than currently assumed would have an especially damaging impact on business confidence and private sector spending propensities' . The Government was told of the consequences, but what is it trying to do? Firms are being forced out of business. We have seen problems with Nestle Australia Ltd. A recent Press statement by my colleague the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Peter Rae, stated: NESTLE'S FACTORY CLOSURE A DISGRACE 'Union bans which have forced Nestle Australia Ltd to close its Pakenham factory are a national disgrace' . . . There were 176 jobs lost in that area. The Government's wages policy, industrial relations policy and employment policy must be integrated into a sound single policy relating to industry and commerce, otherwise unemployment will escalate to very unacceptable levels. I believe that there is an urgency for the Government to look at its commitments and to start implementing them rather than playing around with a lot of issues that will not have any great impact on the economy. The great national issues have to be resolved. Instead, we are mucking around. We are spending far too much time on peripheral issues such as the sex discrimination legislation. We would be far better to debate issues related to improving manufacturing capabilities and the competitive performance of industry in this country. It is therefore with some concern that I note a lack of initiative in relation to the votes of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $73,855,000. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Proposed expenditure, $518,441,000. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(12.27) —I seek from the Government some firmer indication of its estimate of the number of unemployment recipients for the current financial year. During the Estimates committee hearings in respect of the Department of Social Security, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) informed us that, in fact, there would be an average level of unemployment benefit recipients in this current year of about 680,000. He informed us this morning by way of answer to another question that arose in respect of debate on the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill that the current level of unemployment recipients-I take it the figure used was for September 1983-was 602,000. The point I seek clarification from the Government on is whether that level of benefit is an indication of a fall in the expected average estimate for the year, whether it is expected that 602,000 will be the level of unemployment recipients as at June 1984 or whether the Government has some other figure in mind. It is clear that the unemployment level fluctuates throughout any financial year. We expect changes month by month and certainly year by year, between the figures which apply at the end of each financial year. In fact, I believe that the Budget referred to an increase of about 26,000 in the number of unemployment benefit recipients between the year ended 30 June 1983 and the year ended 30 June 1984. It is confusing for those of us who are trying to understand the patterns of unemployment which this Government is expecting in this current year unless we can get clearer indications from the Government as to exactly what it expects the unemployment figure to be. It is clear that the Budget spelt out the intention of the Government to try to create more jobs in the economy. It claimed also that there would be a rise in unemployment this current year. It claimed that that rise might be modest. Now, if Senator Grimes's remarks this morning are to be given credence, there seems to be some considerable change in the level of unemployment recipients. There are two questions at issue. Firstly, is it that the estimate of unemployment was so considerably out of line when the Budget was drawn that the factor was significantly overstated in the Budget, thereby building a higher deficit into the Budget than was actually likely in the circumstances? Secondly, is there simply an element of deception in the Government's approach to the whole question of unemployment, and is the Government playing safe by hedging its bets against the results as at June 1984? We have not at this stage had any clear indication but if in fact it is the first case, that indeed there has been a serious overstatement of unemployment benefit recipients, did the Government deliberately do this in order to create the very high deficit declared in its Budget for this financial year and to blame the former Government as part of its strategy to mislead the Australian people about the real situation in the Australian economy? We would like very clear answers to those questions. There are numerous details which we would like to pursue in the debate on the estimates of other departments. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.32) —I would like just to touch on the matter which Senator Messner has raised. Unfortunately, between my office and the chamber I did not hear all that he had to say on the subject, but the question of the estimates of unemployment is important to our understanding of what the Government sees as the likely course of the economy and what it sees as being necessary to ease the position of the unemployed. We are all approaching this with the very fresh memory of the inaccuracy of the estimates upon which our own Budget was based last year. We had certain estimates with respect to the number of unemployed. They formed an important element in the calculation of the costs of a major Budget item, namely the cost of unemployment. There was a very significant and sudden increase in the number of unemployed over the post-Budget period and that, of course, caused a substantial revision in the total government expenditure and the total deficit. From my recollection of the process whereby the Government arrives at a figure, contributions were made by a series of departments. The Department of Employment and Youth Affairs was one and Treasury was the body which was actually responsible for the final figure which was accepted by the Government. There was very limited input from what was then my Department of Social Security because we did not have the economic forecasting facilities that are involved in getting those figures together, but again my recollection is that there was not complete unanimity between those departments that regarded themselves as having some expert knowledge to contribute to those estimates. The Budget Papers give an annual figure, which is the same arrangement as applied in the Budget Papers which were brought down by us last year. There is an average monthly figure for the financial year. The figure of 680,000 was put in the Budget Papers and formed the basis for the calculation of unemployment benefit. I think it was in the post-Budget period last year, and due I think to matters which were raised in the media and perhaps by the then Opposition-I cannot remember-that I became aware of the fact that there were monthly estimates and that the annual figure was in fact the aggregation of a set of monthly estimates. So those figures presumably are available and presumably the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has figures which it regards as being the likely figures for the balance of this financial year. I think it would be of assistance to us if those figures could be made available. Quite recently I came across an article in the National Times which suggested- indeed it appeared to me to be a piece of very good news for both the Government and for Australia-that there were significantly fewer applicants for unemployment benefit currently than had been predicted. I must say in the present state of statistics there seems to be very great confusion about just what the employment and unemployment position is in Australia. I think the latest monthly 'Round-up of Economic Statistics' from the Treasury makes the point on its front page that there is a great deal of variation in the figures as they have become available month by month. I perhaps should mention this, Mr Chairman, because it explains the reason for the Opposition's interest in the figures which might be available and which might help us all to understand what is happening in the Australian economy and what might be thought to be going to happen in the future. I am sure it is fresh in the memory of all honourable senators that the August figures showed a most disappointing drop in unemployment and showed a quite extraordinary drop in the participation rate since the Labor Government was elected-I think a 1.5 per cent drop in the participation rate, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for August this year. Of course there was an apparent recovery in September. I have not been able to find anything authoritative which would ease my mind about the possibility that we are having some statistical aberrations which make it very difficult to know just what the facts are. An important part of the process of understanding the Government's Budget, what the Government sees the future as holding and what various expert departments might anticipate the future to be, would be to have the departmental estimates of employment and unemployment for the balance of this financial year. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) whether the views of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations could be made available to the Committee for our consideration of the estimates. It has, of course, direct budgetary relevance because if there is a significant reduction in the number of people on unemployment benefit and if the sorts of rather hopeful signs alluded to in the National Times article are true, of course the deficit will be rather less than that which was predicted by the Government, and that would again be a matter of some significance to all of us and would have potential impacts on other areas of the economy, such as interest rates and so on. Senator Button —And you would be pleased? Senator CHANEY —Any good news for Australia is something we should welcome. The fact that it makes life easier for the Government is a matter on which even I would try to suppress my partisan satisfaction. But there was in this area a significant problem for us as a government last year. I acknowledge that. It was a source of considerable criticism from the then Opposition. The view was expressed that the figures had been cooked-I think that was the colloquial expression-because we were seeking to hold down the-- Senator Cook —I beg your pardon. Senator CHANEY —Not Peter Cooked-we will have no Dudley Moore of that. The significant point is that there was an allegation that we had played around with figures because we were trying to keep them down. I think there has been some response from the Government that in this circumstance it cannot be criticised, because if the figures are too high all it is doing is making the position look worse for itself. I am not suggesting that there has been a cooking of the figures. All I am looking for is some guidance as to what the rest of the year holds and the extent to which the estimates on which the Budget is based can in fact be relied upon by the Parliament and the Australian people. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.39) —I will make a brief contribution at this stage. Although the matter being debated does not come within my area, it is a matter in which I have shown some interest in the past, as Senator Chaney knows. First of all I deal with Senator Chaney's last point. Last year on Budget night there appeared in the Budget statements figures which clearly, on five minutes contemplation that night, it seemed were underestimated by about $200m, and which after a couple of weeks it was clear were underestimated by some $600m. Week by week the Treasury and the Minister for Social Security had to admit this. We were in a situation in which a Budget brought down was clearly a pre-election Budget. The Government, in our view, was quite clearly trying to understate the deficit. We pointed that out and what we pointed out was perfectly true because the estimate of average unemployment beneficiaries in the Budget of that time was 395,000. It turned out in the end to be 540,000. This year the figures were calculated in much the same way as Senator Chaney experienced-by contributions from various departments but ultimately from the Treasury. We believed that, despite the fact that there would be an increase in employment, which there has been and which will continue to be the case, there would be an increases in the number of unemployment beneficiaries. It was estimated that they would average about 680,000. As Senator Chaney says, the actual figures, and in this case they are the actual figures-they are the only actual figures we have-have gone from 634,000 in July to 622,000 in August, to 610,000 in September to 601,584 on 21 October 1983. Senator Chaney —What was that figure again? Senator GRIMES —On 21 October 1983 the figure was 601,584. That is a completely different pattern from what was happening last year when the number of unemployment beneficiaries was going through the roof, as Senator Chaney will well remember. What that means is that if that pattern continues, that number of 680,000 average will be considerably lower. But I have not crowed about it in this place, to use the word that Senator Chaney used; nor have I said that these figures herald the brave new world of economic recovery because I do not think that we can make those assumptions when, at the same time, we have had survey figures which have shown that in one month the work force participation allegedly dropped and in another month it went up considerably and when we know perfectly well that we are coming up to a situation in the new year when the school leavers hit the job market. All I have said to anybody who has asked me is that these figures are certainly hopeful. I think I said in debate this morning that these figures demonstrate at least a return to the normal pattern, last year's pattern being extremely abnormal. But I was not attempting to put any more interpretation on them than that. The figures are available to anybody who asks for them. But certainly I doubt whether the Department of Social Security or any Department would make actual predictions as to what will happen month by month because of the economic circumstances and because of the difficulties. All we are saying is that there is an increased number of people in employment. There is a decrease in the number of people that we estimated would be on unemployment benefit. We are hopeful, but we are not claiming anything more than that. Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —I refer my question to the Attorney-General. I remind him of an answer he gave to Senator Chaney in the Senate yesterday in which he said that he had read six to 10 pages of the transcript of telephone tapes concerning the former Minister, Mr Jackson, 'with some care'. I also remind him that he further said: I also scanned-that is the appropriate word-rather more briskly the whole bundle of material in front of me- I think that in other information provided yesterday the Attorney-General indicated that the material contained about 700 pages. I now ask the Attorney- General: How long did he spend scanning this material? Did his scanning involve looking at each page? If not, how many pages did it involve? Senator GARETH EVANS —This series of questions is almost becoming surreal, but I will do my best to answer. I would say I spent approximately 20 minutes looking at the material in front of me. That followed, as I indicated yesterday, approximately half an hour of oral briefings. So it was in the nature of confirmation rather than any full or major study. The particular pages I read closely were those, as I indicated yesterday, which related to particular conversations involving Mr Jackson that had been brought to my attention. I described yesterday the particular context in which I was looking at those particular pages. As to the rest of it, I did no more than turn over the pages and ask occasional questions of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police as to the significance of particular matters that leapt out of the pages at me. Beyond that, I cannot add anything significant to what I said. It was essentially a scanning of the whole bundle of material and a reading more closely of that part of it which had immediately to do with the matters which have come into public contention. Senator DURACK —I wish to ask a supplementary question. Do I understand from that answer that the major portion of the time the Attorney-General spent looking through the material was spent giving close attention to the pages dealing with Mr Jackson's conversations? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, that is what I said. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that the future of the mobile outback support team based in Mount Isa has been placed in jeopardy because of the dismissal of its only two staff members as from the end of November? Is the Minister further aware that this decision has been taken apparently by the sponsor, the Queensland Country Women's Association, without reference to the Office of Child Care in Brisbane or the Mount Isa branch of the Country Women's Association, both of which have nothing but praise for the work of this team? In view of the Federal Government' s commitment of $58,000 to the project which benefits outback families, can the Minister give an assurance that this service will not be discontinued because of an arbitrary decision by a Brisbane-based sponsor? Furthermore, can the Minister indicate what options are available to his Department to ensure that Federal funds are in fact directed to the Mount Isa region where this service operates so that this type of interference cannot occur in the future? Senator GRIMES —I am certainly disturbed to hear the comments in the question by Senator Reynolds. I was not aware of the situation as she described it. I will certainly endeavour to find out just what has happened-- Senator Chaney —You are obviously not controlling your department. Senator GRIMES —It just proves that the question is not a dorothy dixer. I certainly would be concerned if an important service like this to people in the outback of Queensland were to be cut off for some arbitrary reason as Senator Reynolds suggests. I will seek an answer from my Department as soon as possible and let the honourable senator know as soon as possible just what can be done. I would certainly intend that such a service continue. Until I have investigated the causes of what has happened I cannot give any assurances to the honourable senator. Senator PETER RAE —I ask the Attorney-General whether, in the light of the answers which he has just given to Senator Durack, he will now admit that he was in no position to be personally satisfied that, as he told the Senate on 12 October, in no way, shape or fashion a breach of Commonwealth law was involved in the information which was provided to him and that, instead, he relied solely upon the advice of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner in relation to that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I remain wedded to the view that in relation to that part of the transcript material which bore upon the particular conversations involving Mr Jackson and raised the question of possible corruption in the administration of the early release scheme, I was satisfied that nothing in the material that I read in that respect gave rise to any question of a breach of Federal law. It was in that context, of course, that I was answering the question in the Senate on the earlier date to which Senator Peter Rae refers. As to whether or not any-- Senator Peter Rae —Re-read it and you will not say that again. Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Peter Rae will curb his racing hormones and listen for half a moment to the rest of the answer it will, I hope, become clear . To the extent that wider questions arose of possible breaches of Federal law which should have been dealt with by the Federal Government, I was essentially relying in that respect on the advice given to me by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police because I was in no position, on the basis of a scanning as cursory as that which I have described, to reach any wholly satisfactory concluded opinion. But the particular context in which I was answering that question was and always has been the context of the matters immediately involving the former New South Wales Minister. The honourable senator opposite can rise triumphantly to his feet, grin away and present some sentence of mine, perhaps suggesting a context to the contrary, but my answer will remain exactly the same. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that ballot papers printed for a ballot conducted by the Australian Electoral Office for the New South Wales Branch of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union have been printed by a leading computer manufacturer, Rank Xerox (Aust.) Pty Ltd, a non-PKIU establishment? Did the Minister on 15 August assure the National Secretary of the PKIU that the facilities of the Government Printing Offices would be used unless there were real problems in those printeries meeting the deadlines required by the Electoral Office? Is it a fact that the Australian Government Printing Offices are currently not working to full capacity, particularly in New South Wales? If so, why were the ballot papers not printed at the New South Wales branch of the Government Printing Office where there are full security arrangements to protect the integrity of ballot papers? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not sure that I have a sufficiently complete brief to be able to fully answer the questions put to me by Senator Childs. But what I can say is that although commercial facilities have been used on occasions it is the standing policy of the Australian Electoral Office for the printing of industrial ballot material to be carried out by the Government Printing Office unless there are real problems in those printeries-I would imagine by that it is meant to include the New South Wales branch of the Government Printing Office- meeting the deadlines required in the conduct of such elections. Where the Electoral Office's needs cannot be met by the Government Printer, commercial printing facilities are used under a contract arrangement. That is the generalised answer. As to the specific circumstances of the printing of the ballot papers for the PKIU election to which the honourable senator refers, I will seek further and better particulars from the Minister and advise the honourable senator accordingly. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did he see the Four Corners program last Saturday, which contrasted vividly the welfare of the people of Costa Rica, which has no army but instead a comprehensive health and welfare program, with neighbouring Honduras, where health and welfare services are grossly inadequate but where there is a large military establishment from which it appears, among other things, the current United States invasion of Grenada was launched? Will the Government consider establishing a special relationship between Australia and Costa Rica with the objectives of providing moral and material aid for Costa Rica? Meanwhile, will the Government take what action it can to inform the Government of the United States of Australia's support for the current non- military posture of Costa Rica in the midst of the series of ugly wars oppressing Central America, and seek positive guarantees from Washington of Costa Rica's neturality? Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not see the Four Corners program in question, but I am aware of it; it was drawn to my attention. To answer the first part of the question, the Government understands that the United States forces which intervened in Grenada were seaborne elements which had been diverted to the area following the coup against Maurice Bishop. To answer the next part of the question, the special position of Costa Rica as a democratic state with a neutral and pacifist foreign policy is well known to the Government. Costa Rica is certainly concerned at the threat posed to it by the increase in tensions on the borders with Nicaragua. The Foreign Minister advises me that he wrote recently to the Costa Rican Foreign Minister acknowledging the special place of Costa Rica in Central America as a country committed to the traditions of representative democracy. The Government will continue to support Costa Rica and seek to identify ways in which this can be achieved by developing Australia's bilateral relations with that country. I am advised that, given other competing priorities, it is unlikely on present indications that this would extend to the provision of material aid of the kind to which the honourable senator refers. As to the final part of the question, Costa Rica has close relations with the United States and, to the Australian Government's knowledge, it is not seeking guarantees of its neutrality from the United States Government. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the payment today of $10m to the Tasmanian Government on the initiative of the Federal Labor Government under the financial agreement negotiated after the High Court decision on South West Tasmania. I ask: Have moneys been available to the Tasmanian Government for many months so that the Federal Government might fulfil its promises to the Tasmanian people? Was delay in transferring funds due entirely in the first instance to Mr Gray's failure over many weeks to sign the agreement handed to him personally by the Prime Minister on 31 August and then, secondly, the failure of Mr Gray to make the necessary request or claim as provided under the agreement? Will the Government ensure that the Tasmanian people are not again held to ransom by Mr Gray, who is using them as hostages whilst he continues the politics of confrontation and bluster? Senator BUTTON —I did not hear all of the question because my listening was interrupted. Senator Lewis —That will not stop you answering it. Senator BUTTON —Not at all, no; let there be no delusion about that. I did not hear all of the question because of a lot of bluster from a Tasmanian senator on the other side of the House. But that seems to be customary in Tasmanian conservative circles. The answer to the questions that Senator Tate asked relating to the availability of funds to Tasmania over a considerable period, the failure of the funds to be made available because of Mr Gray's reluctance to sign the agreement in question, and so on, is yes. I remind the Senate that the agreement was signed by the Prime Minister and Premier Gray in August, and the relevant clause of that agreement, clause 5 (2), which provides for the payments , is as follows: Subject to the provisions of this agreement, payments of financial assistance shall be made by the Commonwealth to the State from time to time at the request of the State. Senator Walters —Quote the next bit. Come on. Senator BUTTON —No such request was ever received from Mr Gray. As a result, the well-being of many Tasmanians, about whom Senator Walters has professed over many months to be concerned, was adversely affected. I take it that the welfare of Senator Walters was not affected, sitting over there, as she is, earning a very substantial salary. As a result of Mr Gray's failures in these matters, the Tasmanian economy has been in even more trouble than it has been in for the last two or three years. The Minister for Finance in the Federal Government responded to an urgent request only yesterday, not from Mr Gray but from ex-Senator Wriedt , the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania, when, following the refusal of the Premier of Tasmania to make such a request, Mr Wriedt made the request for the provision of interim financial assistance to Tasmania. The Minister for Finance approved the making of an advance of $10m to Tasmania under this provision, and that amount was paid today. I remind the Senate, particularly Senator Walters and Senator Archer, the standard bearers for the conservative forces in Tasmania, that this step was taken following a responsible and decisive intervention by the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania and not by the Premier, who has devoted a lot of time to grandstanding in relation to this issue, which is his hallmark and the hallmark of his representatives over here. This Government could not stand idly by and watch the Tasmanian Government jeopardise the wellbeing of thousands of ordinary Tasmanians. It is the well-being of ordinary Tasmanians and the economic health of the State of Tasmania that this Government is concerned about. The Tasmanian people will undoubtedly wake up to the shortcomings of their representatives in Hobart, to those of the Premier of Tasmania and, very quickly thereafter, to the shortcomings of their noisy representatives in Canberra. Senator Chaney —Will the Leader of the Government table the papers from which he has quoted and, in particular, the agreement? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That has been done. Senator CHANEY —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. I preface it by reminding him of what he said to me in answer to a question on 12 October. I quote from the last paragraph of his answer to the initial question. He said: In regard to the third point raised by Senator Chaney as to whether the circumstances are such as to make the matter one of Commonwealth concern, yes, of course, it is a matter for Commonwealth concern in the general policy sense in relation to the condition of law enforcement in this country, and we make no bones about that. But equally clearly the particular matters of criminal investigation that are involved in this case do not in any way, shape or fashion raise questions of possible breaches of Commonwealth law. I have looked very carefully at this aspect to satisfy myself personally that that is so, and I am satisfied. There is more there, but that quotation is adequate. I ask the Attorney-General, in the light of that statement and particularly his statement that he looked very carefully at this aspect to satisfy himself personally, and in the light of the answers he has given today about the fact that he relied upon the Police Commissioner other than with respect to those few pages which he read carefully, will he now agree that his answer given in the Senate on 12 October is misleading, and will he now apologise for that answer? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will not do anything of the kind, because the particular answer that I gave on 12 October was really quite explicit as to the context in which it was being given. The very passage that Senator Chaney read out contains the expression 'in this case', and I repeat the full sentence in which it appeared. What I said was: But equally clearly the particular matters of criminal investigation that are involved in this case- I emphasise those last three words- do not in any way, shape or fashion raise questions of possible breaches of Commonwealth law. The particular context in which I was answering that question and the particular case to which I was referring related to the very allegations involving a senior Minister of the New South Wales Government which had been the subject of reference by the Commonwealth to the New South Wales police force and which had been the subject of report by Commissioner Abbott to the New South Wales Government, which report was the subject matter of Senator Chaney's question. Senator Chaney's question was not canvassing the whole content of the Federal narcotics investigation in the course of which this matter arose. Senator Chaney 's question was canvassing, as did all the questions at that time, the particular circumstances involved in the allegations about a particular senior New South Wales official. That was the context in which I was answering. That is the context in which I continue to answer to this day and, under those circumstances, I simply shall not even begin to treat with any respect the kind of question that has just been put to me. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Since the Minister has the question in front of him, would he look again at the question which I asked of him? Does he agree that my question was in fact much wider than one limited to the narrow question of the particular matters affecting Mr Jackson? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, I do not agree. Senator Chaney —Read it out. Senator GARETH EVANS —In respect of the relevant part, I am perfectly happy to do so because the answer speaks for itself. The relevant part of the question opened with a reference to the Abbott report, and then Senator Chaney, in his second sentence, stated: In that report it is stated that information on early release of prisoners was obtained by telephone taps by Commonwealth Police during surveillance of 'drug traffickers involved in international drug smuggling who by covert means had associated themselves with the Minister of the Crown responsible for the early release of prisoners'. He then referred to other aspects of the Abbott report which were related squarely to that context. The context was that of allegations involving a Minister of the Crown and official corruption. It was in that context that I gave my reply and it is in that context that I do so today. Senator ROBERT RAY —Will the Minister representing the Prime Minister outline the Government's position with regard to American intervention in Grenada? Why has the Government indicated that Australia will not participate in a Commonwealth peacekeeping force, a concept which apparently enamours those opposite? Senator BUTTON —The Government's position about Grenada has been pretty clear right from the beginning and quite clear since the meeting of Cabinet on Monday. Senator Messner —Really? Senator BUTTON —From the interjections I divine that some members of the Opposition think the Government's position was not as clear as it might have been last week. Let me say, first of all, that one of the interesting aspects about the Opposition was that it was absolutely clear on what the Government should have done about Grenada over the weekend. It was absolutely clear about its position. It was the only political party in the western world that was. For example, on Sunday on television I saw the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Mr MacKellar-this time he was on television; he did not just have a set under his arm-in the course of a quite lengthy discourse about foreign policy, suggest that the Government's position in Australia was part of some move to the Left by the Labor Party in Australia on international issues. It was the most plausible rubbish I have ever seen from an Opposition spokesman talking about foreign affairs issues, trying to make a thesis out of a set of straw facts. The same could be said about the performance over the weekend of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Grenada. It was quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to lead the charge of the Australian light brigade to Grenada, if it became necessary-something which he refrained from doing on a previous occasion when he had the real opportunity to do so. In terms of international views about Grenada, as distinct from the views of the Opposition in this country, let me say this: I have had the opportunity of looking at the expressions of opinion about the United States intervention in Grenada as expressed by many governments throughout the world. Those expressions of opinion vary from very strong criticism by countries such as Sweden, France and other European countries to, at the other end of the spectrum, a view expressed by the Government of Guatemala, of all places, which welcomed-the only country, I believe, which did-the United States intervention with all the ramifications. Senator Lewis —What about the Grenadians? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis says: 'What about the Grenadians?' The Grenadians, Senator Lewis and the Government of Guatemala welcomed, according to Senator Lewis, the United States intervention. That matter needs some explanation. Let me be quite clear about the situation of world opinion on this issue. Senator Peter Rae —What about ASEAN? Senator BUTTON —I do not wish to take up other interjections but Senator Rae, for goodness sake, invites me to comment on what ASIO thought about it. Senator Peter Rae —ASEAN. Senator BUTTON —You said ASIO, but ASEAN, ASIO, it does not matter in the spirit of your interjection. Does Senator Rae want to know what the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations said about it? Is he suggesting that any of the ASEAN countries, either collectively or on their own, welcomed the intervention? I would like him to show me the material which suggests that, because it has not been available to the Government. In relation to the Government's response, there was grave difficulty, as there was for all governments, in finding out the precise set of circumstances which had arisen in Grenada. All governments had that difficulty-Canada, the European countries and Australia-but not the Opposition in Australia. It was the only group that did not have any problems about that. As I said earlier, the Opposition placed itself in a unique position in relation to the situation which developed. The Government's response was a cautious one, in the circumstance of trying to establish the facts about what had taken place. When the facts were established, on Monday the Government issued a statement about it which, amongst other things , said that there would be no commitment by the Australian Government to a peacekeeping force in Grenada. The reasons for that, as I divine them, are quite clear. For many years, for many decades-since the Australian intervention, I believe, in Sudan, but certainly since the Boer War-Australian troops have been involved in one way or another in pursuing the escapades of other countries in places remote from Australia. It is not the Government's view that the very good relationship which this Government has with the United States of America in any way requires that commitment, just as such a commitment would not be given by the United States, I imagine, if Australia invaded Timor, for example. We would not expect a commitment of support from the United States in such a circumstance and it is not entitled to expect a commitment of support from us in what are very similar circumstances. There will be no commitment of Australian forces to a peacekeeping force in Grenada. The reasons are historically valid-valid in terms of international affairs and valid in terms of the best interests of this country. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Attorney-General to his answer to Senator Durack yesterday concerning allegations by Mr Bob Bottom, in which he said: It is not my knowledge that the Australian Federal Police has any other information in its possession which would give credence or support to what Mr Bottom is saying. I will inquire further of the Special Minister of State to see whether that is so. I refer also to his answer to Senator Rae, in which he said: It was in the light of Mr Bottom's allegations, which appear on their face to have about as much substance as Mr Sinclair's, that I asked Mr Beazley, with his senior police officers, to check the material in question to see whether there was any foundation for those allegations. In the Attorney-General's Press statement of 28 October he said that he would check this matter out fully with his colleague or the Federal Police. I ask the Attorney-General: Has he checked this matter out either with his colleague or with the Federal Police and, if so, with what result? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have raised the question with my colleague. I have not yet had a fully concluded response from him except inso- far as the question has now been raised of a judicial inquiry to be held in New South Wales in relation to which my colleague the Special Minister of State this morning informed me of his position and that of the Federal Police and, indeed, the Government. Our position would be to make available to that judicial commission of inquiry in New South Wales all material of relevance that is within the possession of the Commonwealth Police and which we have the legal capacity to make available. It will be appreciated by the honourable senator that there are some limitations as to what can be made available under the explicit terms of the Telecommunications Interception Act. It may be that that may impose some constraints. I have no further information as to whether there is any specific material in the possession of the Commonwealth police which specifically advances the cause of Mr Bottom's allegations. I await further information from the Special Minister of State on that. I have heard nothing from him to suggest that my answer was in any way inaccurate, at least so far as it bore upon the particular subject matter of the transcripts which have so far received public attention. As I indicated yesterday, I am not really in the business, nor is the Government , of confirming or denying any other aspect of the subject matter of those transcripts, because to do so would be quite irresponsible, given the nature and sensitivity of the material involved. Thus, I think it is unlikely that I will be able to say anything more on the public record about this, even when I get a full and final report from the Special Minister of State. I believe it will be the case that the Government's position, as I have just described it, will be that anything in our possession that bears upon the accuracy or otherwise of Mr Bottom's allegations will be made available to the New South Wales commission of inquiry to the extent of our legal capacity to do so. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show that private foreign capital continues to flow into Australia at a significant rate, and that this trend is increasing? What short term problems will these capital movements cause the Australian economy? As private capital inflow has always been a strong measure of business confidence in the economy, what credence can be placed in the claims by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Howard, on 6 October in the House of Representatives that the Government does not have the support of the business sector? Senator WALSH —The last part of Senator Richardson's question asked what credence could be placed in the claims of the discredited former Treasurer. I think the answer to that is quite clearly none. No more credence can be placed in those claims than can be placed in his, to say the least, highly misleading statements -the Standing Orders preclude me from using stronger language-which he endorsed in the week prior to the last Federal election when he said that the then Government was facing a prospective deficit in 1983-84 on a no policy change basis of $6 billion when, in fact, he had been told by the Treasury Secretary that the prospective deficit being faced at that time was $9.6 billion. So no credence, I suggest, could be placed in anything that the discredited former Treasurer and evidently aspiring Leader of the Opposition might claim about anything. I turn now to the other matters raised in Senator Richardson's question. I have statistics that show that for the September quarter of 1983-the last quarter for which figures are available-private capital inflow into Australia was $1.847 billion, which is of the order of magnitude to which we have become accustomed in recent times. Therefore, there has been no falling away in capital inflow. That fact, of course, reflects confidence in the management of the Australian economy. It is a recognition that Australia now has a government which exercises fiscal responsibility. Statistics released last week show a very substantial fall in the rate of inflation, a fall which, though not specifically predicted in the Budget Papers for the September quarter, was predicted for the financial year as a whole. It now seems at least possible that the consumer price index increase of 7.5 per cent for the whole year as forecast in the Budget Papers may even be a little above that which is likely to occur. Heavy capital movements into Australia, the subject of another part of Senator Richardson's question, do cause some secondary problems. They obviously expand the money supply and place pressures on the Australian dollar for revaluation. To some extent, of course, those pressures have been reflected in recent statistics and recent movements. That is a problem which is recognised by the Government and to which the Government continues to address itself. In conclusion, in a report published a couple of weeks ago-I think in the Australian Financial Review-attention was drawn to a very significant fall in capital inflow in the June quarter of 1983 as against the June quarter of 1982. Whether that was a good thing or a bad thing may be a matter of opinion, but in the June quarter of 1983 capital inflow into Australia fell by 60 per cent compared with the same quarter the year before. That, however, presented a very distorted picture of what was actually going on as capital inflow in the June 1982 quarter was at an extraordinarily high level. On a year on year basis, or on a trend basis, private capital continues to come into Australia at a rate slightly below that which had applied in the previous couple of years. But that should be seen in the context of the fact that in the previous couple of years- that is the 1981-82 and 1982-83 years-private capital inflow was at an unprecedented high. In the first of those years it was $9.7 billion; in the next year it was $8.4 billion. These figures were probably higher than is economically desirable, certainly in the long term. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I refer the Attorney-General to the tapes concerning the early release of New South Wales prisoners. I ask him: Was there anything anywhere at all on the tapes suggesting arrangements for the payment of any money to any person? Senator Grimes —We ought to have some tapes on you and Askin. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order about the interjection of Senator Grimes which was highly offensive to Senator Sir John Carrick. Senator Grimes —I do not understand how it was offensive. I said we should have some tapes on Senator Sir John Carrick and Sir Robert Askin. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, you should withdraw the reflection on Senator Sir John Carrick. Please withdraw. Senator Grimes —With respect, I said we should have a tape of conversations between Senator Sir John Carrick and Sir Robert Askin. I did not imply there was anything on those tapes that was offensive or otherwise. If Senator Sir John Carrick is concerned about what might be on such tapes, I can understand his agitation. Senator Sir John Carrick —I rise to the point of order, Mr Deputy President. I did not raise the point of order, but I now invite Senator Grimes to inform this Senate at any time of anything he knows concerning anything to my detriment, with regard to either a former Premier of New South Wales or anything else. I do that because repeatedly Senator Grimes makes innuendos, and I reject every form of innuendo that he seeks to make. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, on what I assume-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. This is not an appropriate time for the invitation to be taken up. Standing order 418 prohibits any reflections on honourable senators. The implication of the interjection by Senator Grimes is a clear reflection on Senator Sir John Carrick and I direct him to withdraw it. Senator Grimes —I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I now call on the Attorney-General to answer the question. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Deputy President, I hate to interrupt this dialogue; it is far more interesting than my answer will be. As I recall Senator Sir John Carrick's question, he asked whether there was any mention in the transcripts I read of anything which suggested that arrangements had been made about the payment of money to persons in relation to the early release of prisoners scheme . I do not propose to give any detail about the content of those transcripts or to say anything which would either confirm or deny any proposition such as that advanced by Senator Sir John Carrick. All I can do in this respect is repeat what I said yesterday in answer to one of Senator Chaney's questions, that there were passages in the transcript which had an element of ambiguity about them, as to whether the subject matter of the conversation was something which might be regarded as part and parcel of a ministerial carrying out of ordinary portfolio responsibilities or, on the other hand, as I said yesterday had something about them containing a suspicion of criminality or corruption. There were passages in the tapes that had that element of ambiguity. Beyond that I do no propose to answer Senator Sir John Carrick's question. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. Since the Attorney-General has said that his perusal of the tapes was directed towards determining whether there was any federal offence or likelihood of a federal offence, quite clearly if there was a discussion on money that would have demonstrated the likelihood of a federal offence. I ask him: Was that ambiguity concerned with conversations about the payment of money? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. In case there is any ambiguity about that response, let me add this: Yes, the passages in question were ambiguous as to whether or not the subject matter of the conversation did concern money or did not. If there have been explicit references to money in the transcripts, clearly it would not have been possible for me to answer in this place as I have done. The whole question in issue was whether the subject matter of the conversations was to be regarded as being about money or whether, rather, it was in fact wholly innocent. It is that element of ambiguity which caused me to answer as I did and which in fact caused Commissioner Abbott to conclude as he did in his intitial report to the New South Wales Government. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I would like to know what proportion of Commonwealth drivers are female, where they are employed and what steps the Government is taking to increase that proportion. Senator GIETZELT —Currently some 442 Commonwealth drivers look after the needs of members of parliament, public servants and officers of statutory authorities. Of those 442, there are no female drivers. Of course, the Government is committed to a policy of increasing the percentage of females in such occupations within the Commonwealth Public Service, and I might add that we have seen a quite dramatic change come over this Parliament, in which there are 19 female members, on both sides of the House. It is interesting to note, however, that the ratio in this regard is more than two to one in Labor's favour. It seems obvious that a policy of discrimination has been practised in the Department of Administrative Services, led by various Ministers from conservative governments. There has never been an attempt to overcome the obvious discrimination that exists. Despite this, many members will acknowledge that we have from time to time been picked up by female drivers from the hire car services and the taxi service which are sometimes provided when an inadequate number of Commonwealth cars are available for members of parliament at a particular time. Since 1975, when the Liberal-Country Party came back into office, there has been no recruitment at all of drivers to the Department of Administrative Services. The Government is changing that situation and is inviting applications from interested parties to become drivers for the Department. The Government has indicated that it will apply the principles of equal opportunity in this respect and therefore women drivers who have the competence and meet the criteria will be given equal consideration for such appointments. I just happened to look at the number of persons here representing the journalism profession. There are 14 journalists in the Press Gallery, if my mental arithmetic is correct, and half of them are females. So it seems that no discrimination is practised there, even though discrimination was practised by previous Liberal-Country Party governments. It is the Government's intention not only in respect of the Sex Discrimination Bill but also in practice to see that women are given fair representation right throughout the Public Service. Senator MESSNER —Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to the disturbing report on Capital 7 television news last week that a person whom it was alleged had defrauded the Department of Social Security of some $10,000 had been relieved of restitution and/or prosecution as a result of the Minister's intervention and direction to his Department not to prosecute? Can the Minister confirm whether the allegation is true, or substantially true, and if so can he advise the Senate of the name of the person involved and the circumstances of the case? Did any intervention arise from representations by the honourable member for Fraser? Are decisions about prosecution and the restitution of moneys lost through fraud normally a departmental function? Finally, will he explain to the Senate the reasons for his action? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have heard a second- hand report of such a program on Capital 7, although I have not seen details of it. From memory, I believe it can refer to only one case. That was a case which I believe involved not $10,000 but approximately half that amount. It was to go before the court. I received representation on a couple of occasions at least-again, I am speaking from memory-concerning this case. I receive representations on many occasions from people on both sides of this Parliament about such cases and about the prosecution of such cases. On this occasion, after examining the situation and talking to officers of my Department I decided that I would use the discretion I had and that prosecution would not proceed. I would expect that in the vast majority of cases I would not do such a thing. The only cases on which one can take action are those about which representations are made by members of parliament or others. I cannot remember the individual's name and I cannot recall the exact details at the moment, nor do I believe it would be proper to expose publicly the circumstances of such a person, and probably the person's name, in this Parliament, although I will consider that. Representations were made to me on this occasion by the honourable member for Fraser, Mr Fry. As I say, on other occasions I have had representations from people on both sides of this Parliament. In other similar cases I had representations from an ex-Minister in the previous Government. It may be that Senator Messner does not believe there should be any ministerial discretion in such situations. It may be that previous Ministers have not exercised such discretion; I would not know. In this situation there is such a power. I had to make a judgment. I made that judgment. I would have to consider whether I should give the personal details of why I made that judgment. As to my decision on whether to proceed with the prosecution, my memory is that it had nothing to do with restitution of the funds. I will check on those facts and let the honourable senator have the details later. Senator COATES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been drawn to reports in which the Tasmanian Minister for Health blames the Federal Government for delaying a major nursing home development which he claims would immediately overcome bed problems at the Launceston General Hospital? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether these claims are correct? Is it true that the Masonic Nursing Home development has been delayed because of tardiness on the part of this Government? In any case, how would the Masonic Nursing Home development solve the bed problems of the Launceston General Hospital? Senator GRIMES —I believe the question should have been directed to me in my capacity as the Minister for Social Security rather than as the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In the statement referred to, Mr Cleary blamed me personally for the bed situation at the Launceston General Hospital and for the delay, as he put it, in the approval of the project at the Masonic Nursing Home. I think it is worth while looking at the facts. I realise that Mr Cleary has been under considerable attack in the last week by the Press in Tasmania and that he had to cast around to throw a stone somewhere. On this occasion I believe the facts should be put. First of all, as Senator Coates and other Tasmanians would know, there is a problem at the Launceston General Hospital. There has been a problem for many years. One of the causes of that problem is the fact that stage 2 of the building of the hospital has not proceeded. The previous Government, in its seven years in office, absolutely refused to make any commitment to fund stage 2 of that hospital, despite the fact that the member for Bass was a Minister and despite the fact that he continually claimed that he supported such a proposal. The second fact is that there is a problem in the Launceston General Hospital in that there are 550-odd nursing home beds in the north and north-eastern region of Tasmania and 104 of them should be acute beds in the Launceston General Hospital. The problems have been: Firstly, the lack of construction of nursing home beds in the north-east of Tasmania in the last few years; secondly, the closing down of a couple of nursing homes in recent times; and, thirdly, the fact that the hospitals have had a lack of funds in recent years and have been unable to extend their operations. The facts about the Masonic Nursing Home and nursing home beds generally in the north and north-east in Tasmania are these: The Masonic Nursing Home sought approval initially for 30 hostel beds. In fact, that approval and approval for the capital funding of those beds was given. The Masonic Nursing Home decided not to proceed with those hostel beds until it had received approval for 40 beds specifically allocated for senile dementia patients, 20 respite beds in a nursing home and a day centre. As distinct from approval for funding, that approval in principle was given by the Commonwealth Department of Health in January 1983. All funds for the construction of nursing home beds in the year 1983-84 have been allocated. Those funds were allocated by the previous Government-not this Government. They were allocated for the period from November 1982 to January 1983. This Government is in the process of making approvals. I am informed that my Department will be giving me recommendations in the next week for approvals for 1984-85. That is the way in which approvals proceed. That is the way in which approvals are done and have been done for many years. Until the article in the Examiner today-I understand that it referred to a letter that Mr Cleary had sent to me the day before yesterday-I had not been approached by Mr Cleary about the Masonic Nursing Home proposal, although I had been approached by members on both sides of this House. Whether or not the Masonic Nursing Home receives funds-I certainly am in favour of its project which I believe involves an important and advanced concept-depends on approvals for the whole of Australia. For me to approve the construction of a nursing home of this type in isolation from all the other approvals, quite apart from the fact that it happens to be the home town from which I come, would be quite improper and I would create considerable criticism from both sides of this Parliament, and so I should. Apparently, Mr Cleary claimed that sudden approval in the next week or so of these nursing home beds would solve the problems of beds in the Launceston General Hospital. There are 104 long stay patients in the Launceston General Hospital. Many of those patients are in what should be acute beds. The building of the nursing home by the Masonic Nursing Home would not take up those 104 beds and it certainly would not be completed before another 12 months at least. Mr Cleary should stop grandstanding. He should consult more with the Federal Department of Health and his own colleagues to see what can be done with the situation in the Launceston General Hospital, the problems of which have been obvious to everybody who lives in that town and obvious to everybody who has had anything to do with the hospital in the last several years. For Mr Cleary to suddenly blame this Government and this Minister for the mess that he and his Department are in is improper and indecent, and is just indulging in party politics. I reject the claim. Senator MISSEN —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Finance to a media release by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society of 20 October which claims that an interdepartmental confrontation in Canberra is blocking urgently needed funding for rangers in Tasmania's world heritage area. Will the Minister comment on the claim that officials of the Department of the Treasury are apparently blocking funds for 12 rangers which were promised by Prime Minister Hawke? Given the large number of rafters, cruise tourists and bush walkers who are expected in the region this summer and the fact that November and December are the most perilous months of the rafting season, I ask the Minister: Firstly, will the Government, as a matter of priority, take steps to resolve this interdepartmental problem so as to ensure that the necessary funds are made available to employ rangers during the summer months; secondly, what action is being taken by the Australian Government in its discussions with the Tasmanian Government to facilitate the development of a management plan for the South West heritage area to protect the unique environment and to ensure the safety of those many people who use it; and thirdly, what action is the Australian Government taking to ensure the use of rangers to protect the world heritage features of the area, in particular the Huon pines and the priceless archaeological records in the Franklin caves? Senator WALSH —I presume that Senator Missen was not here when I answered a similar question yesterday, although it was not as extensive. The effective additions to yesterday's question cover matters outside the strict responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I will approach the relevant Minister to see whether he has any information to provide on that part of the question. As to whether the Government will seek to resolve this question, I will certainly endeavour to have that done. The essential features which I outlined yesterday were that the Prime Minister approached the Tasmanian Premier on, I think, 31 August; I cannot remember the precise date. There was a time lapse of almost six weeks prior to the Premier responding. When the Premier did respond he significantly expanded the ambit of the claim he was making. That, I understand, was the cause of the delay. I will see what additional information can be found. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. That does not answer the kernel of my question which was whether there is an interdepartmental confrontation in Canberra blocking the use of the funds. In other words, I am asking whether it is inside the department-the Treasury-in Canberra. The Minister has not answered that. Senator WALSH —Not to my knowledge, but I will make further inquiries. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of a letter circulated by a group of doctors in Tasmania who are canvassing their colleagues for funds for an advertisement in local papers stating that Medicare is detrimental to the best care of patients, will lower the standard of treatment and is intended as nationalisation of medical practice? Does the Minister not agree that this is misleading to the public and mischievous? Senator GRIMES —The Senate will be surprised to know that I have seen such a letter which was forwarded to some of my medical colleagues in Tasmania. Senator Coates —Are you on the list? Senator GRIMES —I am not on the list, unfortunately, Senator Coates. The letter in fact comes as a result of a forum which was held in Tasmania on 7 October which no-one in this place would be surprised to know was organised by the General Practitioners Society in Australia and was funded by certain pharmaceutical firms in this country. At that meeting, apparently, some 49 doctors volunteered to put their names to a full page advertisement in the Hobart Mercury stating their opposition to Medicare. The person who wrote the letter and organised the meeting was Doctor Denis P. Mackey who is well known to most of us and who was formally President of the General Practitioners Society in Australia and, I believe, editor of its journal the GP Society. He was also previously associated with a well known right wing political party in this country which has since gone into oblivion. Many people listed were willing to sign the advertisement. Some of them are general practitioners and some are consultants, including a well known consultant who, a couple of years ago in the 1980 election, allegedly representing the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, put in a party political advertisement urging people to vote against the Australian Labor Party . The spouse of a well known senator from Tasmania apparently is also willing to have his name included. He was also formerly director of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd, which is a fund organised by and for doctors. I hope that the spouse of that person will declare an interest when any further Medicare legislation is introduced. It was intended to put an advertisement in the Hobart Mercury costing about $1, 800 for which doctors were being asked to contribute $20 a head. I think the intended wording of the advertisement is very interesting. It goes: We the following medical practitioners declare that we are totally committed to the provision of private medical and hospital care for all patients who wish it. I do not see anything offensive about that. I doubt whether anyone else here sees anything offensive about people providing private medical care for those who wish it. It continues: We regard government intrusion into private practice as detrimental to the best care of these patients. I always find that an interesting comment in an advertisement of this type because there has been government intervention and intrusion into private practice in this country from time immemorial. For instance, some of the very people who have signed this advertisement have put people into private hospitals which receive public funds and public subsidies and they are perfectly willing to be paid through private health insurance agents such as the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd which are licensed by government and whose practices are protected by government. The next line says: The Government's proposed Medicare scheme will inevitably lower the standard of treatment our private patients can obtain. The words 'our private' are cut out. They obviously were not willing to put in an advertisement that they in any way may have been affected in how they could practice. So they cut out the words 'our private'. The final sentence says: We therefore reject the Medicare scheme which prohibits patients from insuring for private medical care of their choice- The words 'which prohibits patients from insuring for private medical care of their choice' are crossed out because suddenly even those doctors realised that that was an outrageous and a lying statement. The letter goes on: . . . and the intended nationalisation of medical practice. I think that hysterical advertisements like this are an insult to the intelligence of patients. It is an insult to request doctors to pay money to put an advertisement such as this in a newspaper. I repeat: Medicare is about health insurance; Medicare is about the proper provision of health insurance; Medicare is about enabling people to pay a fair share towards the health care system in this country and enabling people more easily to collect refunds as a result of that insurance. It is not about the nationalisation of medical practice. The tragedy of this situation is that at least 49 doctors-and there may be more-are willing to kick in and put in the Press an advertisement like this which is misleading and which is unnecessarily worrying to patients. They are also, as a result of that meeting, apparently willing to refuse to bulk bill and to see patients such as pensioners who would normally be bulk billed. They are, as I have said on another occasion in this place, willing to fight Medicare down to the last patient but they are not willing, apart from kicking in $20 each for an advertisement, which would be cigarette money to most of them if they smoked, to put at risk their considerable incomes. I suggest that if these doctors are willing to ignore the existence of Medicare and treat only those patients who cannot insure either through Medicare or the voluntary health funds and those patients who are willing to pay the full cost of their medical services at the inflated prices they charge, they should do so. But they will not do so because if they did they would all go broke. That is the nub of the matter. They are willing to carry on in this way as long as their incomes are not affected. They are a disgrace to the medical profession. As I said once before, they are even a disgrace to the political profession. Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some answers to questions that have been raised in this place. On 18 October Senator Primmer asked a question concerning the termination of the appointment of Sir Victor Garland as the High Commissioner in London, and seeking confirmation that Sir Victor's full salary is paid to him by the the Department of Foreign Affairs without the deduction of any tax. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers: Sir Victor Garland's appointment as the Australian High Commissioner in London will terminate on 20 December this year. The Commissioner of Taxation advises that the secrecy provisions of the income tax law prevent the disclosing of details of the affairs of particular taxpayers. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 21 October 1983 Senator Missen asked a question of Senator Grimes, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs in my absence, concerning the establishment of an Arab League office in Australia. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following supplementary answer: The Government will ensure that no Palestine Liberation Organisation representatives will work in any Arab League office which may be established and will do so by making clear that this condition applies to the establishment of any Arab League representation. It can, of course, make use of the visa issuing power. As Senator Grimes indicated in his answer, the establishment of an Arab League office would also be conditional on assurances that an office would not be involved in promoting boycotts of Australian firms. The Prime Minister has said that the activities of any such office would be carefully monitored. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Chaney asked me whether the communication between New South Wales Minister Mr Jackson and Mr Harris, which has achieved subsequent notoriety, was about the prospective release of prisoners. I have asked for the transcript to be checked on this particular point and I can confirm that, as I indicated yesterday was probably the case, the answer is yes. I also mention for the record that the prisoners in question were from Broken Hill, not from Bathurst as I inadvertently said in my answer. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 20 October 1983 Senator Elstob asked a question concerning Australian action on disarmament issues at the United Nations General Assembly concerning a statement on Australia's role by the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has provided the following further answer: Australia is taking an active role at the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament questions. In conjunction with New Zealand, Australia is pursuing the question of a comprehensive nuclear test ban. Australia is also working to ensure that the preparations for the third nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in 1985 are launched successfully. The Government is striving to enhance the international effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to reinforce support for the NPT. Other disarmament issues that Australia will pursue include advancing international agreement to avoid the arms race entering outer space, reduction of military budgets, the curbing of the arms trade and the black market trade in arms and the outlawing of chemical weapons. The Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed the General Assembly on 4 October 1983 when he referred to a number of these issues in more detail. Copies of Mr Hayden's speech are available in the Parliamentary Library. Senator Walters —I have two matters which I want to raise, Mr Deputy President. The first is a point of order which relates to something which happened during Question Time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You should have taken the point of order at the time. Senator Walters —I raised it then, and you told me to raise it at the end of Question Time. The second matter is a matter of personal explanation. Which would you like first? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is not normal to have an option. Make your personal explanation first, then make your request. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Senator Grimes —Has she been misrepresented? Senator WALTERS —I claim that my spouse has been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes, in his usual untruthful way and by innuendo, which he has already been pulled up for in Question Time, claimed that my spouse -certainly he was referring to me as he well knows-was a director of a health fund. That is not true. My husband happens to be an honourary member of a board of a voluntary health fund. He gives it a considerable amount of his time. He does not receive one penny in payment, nor has he any self-interest in it at all . It is quite beyond the grubby little mind of Senator Grimes- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, would you just make a personal explanation of where your husband has been misrepresented. Senator WALTERS —I am trying to explain to you, Mr Deputy President, why Senator Grimes would not understand. He should not judge other people on his own low standards because there are people in this community who are willing to do things for others in their own time. I do not expect Senator Grimes to understand but I do expect other honourable senators to understand. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I seek leave to make a statement. I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I apologise for one thing. I believe that if Senator Walters reads the Hansard she will find that I described the person concerned as being formerly a director of the Medical Benefit Fund of Australia. Senator Walters —He was never a director. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry if 'director' is not the correct term. I should have said that he was a member of the board of a voluntary health fund which is for doctors and for members. Senator Walters —Honorary. Senator GRIMES —It depends on one's definition of 'honorary'. Perhaps some people consider that a fares-paid trip overseas for that member of the board and his spouse to attend a conference is considerable remuneration. The simple fact is that to be a member of the medical profession and to be on the board of a voluntary health fund at the same time is quite clearly a conflict of interest. I have no intention of going on with this nonsense in this way. Senator Button —It is a question of standards. Senator GRIMES —It is a question of standards, yes. Senator Walters —Do I have a right of reply, Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Personal explanation must not develop into a debate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-Earlier today in Question Time Senator Chaney asked that Senator Button table both the paper he was reading from as well as an agreement between Mr Grey, the Premier of Tasmania, and Mr Hawke, the Prime Minister, from which he quoted. Whilst Senator Button tabled the paper from which he was reading in his answer to Senator Tate's dorothy dixer, he did not table the agreement. I have before me the papers, but I have no agreement. I would like to see the agreement he was quoting from which he was asked to table. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should rule on this point because there is some area of confusion about this matter. Senator Chaney, as I understood him, asked for the document from which Senator Button was quoting to be tabled. Standing order 363 provides that a document relating to public affairs quoted from by a Minister of the Crown, unless it is confidential, may be tabled. The problem is that, over the years, there has been some variation in interpretation of what is meant by ' quoted from'. That matter has been considered recently by the Senate Standing Orders Committee. In its current report on this subject it recommended that the proper interpretation of those words should be that the documents quoted from are only those documents in the possession of the senator concerned in the chamber. Although this report has not been considered by the Senate yet I feel obliged to accept that view of the Committee. Therefore the Leader of the Government in the Senate cannot be required to table any documents other than those he had in the chamber at the time of answering the question. Whether he wishes to table any other matter is a matter for him. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The confusion and contradictions of the Government's taxation policy. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(3.16) —The Opposition directs the Senate's attention to the confusion and contradictions of the Government's taxation policy. I believe that the taxation policy is both confusing and contradictory. It is confusing because the Australian Labor Party has reneged on so many of its election promises and is pursuing policies which it criticised so strongly when it was in opposition. Its policy is contradictory because of recent conflicting statements by Ministers, not the least being by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), on whether Australians will be subject to higher personal taxes or whether these taxes will be reduced. If we add to this mix the fear factor engendered by continuing speculation about capital gains or other wealth taxes and the ever present prospect of new death duties, it is little wonder that the Australian community views this eight-month old Government with a degree of suspicion and cynicism on its taxation policy. Taxation policies of another kind which apply to the resources development industry are equally clouded in confusion and uncertainty. The Government has said it intends introducing a resources rent tax on coal and oil in 1984-85. Senator Walsh —That is just not correct. You ought to know better than to say that. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —That is the statement being made. The Government is yet to reveal the details of the resources tax. Given the constitutional and political difficulties associated with changing the taxing arrangement for coal, we have to assume that oil looms as the preferred target for the Government's resources tax. There is mounting concern that such a move will have serious implications for the level of oil exploration in this country. This week, the Managing Director of the Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd predicted that only the big oil companies would survive in a resourses rent tax era, resulting in a further reduction in Australian ownership and overall competitiveness. Perhaps the most serious aspect of the Government's confused and contradictory taxation policies has been in relation to aged persons and the proposals and decisions that have been taken by the Government in this area. A decision has been made to change the taxing arrangements for lump sum superannuation payments . This was announced in the May mini-Budget. This was a totally unexpected shock to thousands upon thousands of ordinary Australians who had been making prudent provision for their retirement. The worst feature of this change was not only that it was, in no way, forecast in any of Labor's pre-election statements, but also that it came so soon after denials of the change were made by the Prime Minister at the National Economic Summit Conference. Not content with hitting one group of older Australians in May, the Government chose to introduce what amounts to a selective capital gains tax with its August Budget decision to bring in an assets test for pensioners. My colleague Senator Messner will deal with these matters in greater detail, but I simply mention them as aspects of the Government's taxing policy which have been contradictory in terms of earlier statements that were made by Government spokesmen and which are certainly confusing to those people who now have to rearranged their affairs. I think these are classic examples of ill- thought through policies which have been foisted upon an unsuspecting community, resulting in maximum confusion and concern because of the incomplete nature of the proposals. When proposals are announced and subsequently changed, there is a great deal of uncertainty and confusion among those who will be affected by them or who suspect they might become affected by them. The community as a whole has been confused and disappointed by the Government's election confidence trick of promising immediate personal income tax cuts for six million Australians. That was a quite specific policy promise in February. Senator Button —That is not true. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — It was a very definite policy promise and it is worth recalling the pledge of the Prime Minister from the stage of the Sydney Opera House on 16 February this year when, in talking about the Australian Labor Party's total income tax package, he said: Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost 6 million Australian taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes who have suffered most under Mr Fraser's policies. A taxpayer without dependants earning $225 a week, for example, will get a tax cut of $4.76 a week. Enough has been written about that election campaign, and all of the promises that were made throughout it, for it now to be positively stated that this promise was a cynical attempt to buy votes and was included against the advice of more rational people at that time who knew that it could not be responsibly offered or achieved. No amount of post-election posturing and shock horror over the level of the inherited deficit can hide the fact that Mr Hawke and his advisers knew that this was an unkeepable promise at the time that it was made. So much for that warm rhetoric that we heard in February of this year. Mr Hawke said at that time: 'Labor's new tax scales will be introduced in its first budget'. But the cold reality of the August Budget produced a much different picture. Absolutely nothing was done in the Budget to restructure the tax scales along the lines of Mr Hawke's promised six new steps. If honourable senators opposite want to challenge that statement, as Senator Button did, I think it is fair enough to repeat the statements that were made by government members with regard to income tax cuts. In the economic plan that was outlined in February the government said: The Labor Government will implement a new package of (tax) policies . . . This will include tax cuts for low and middle income earners . . . I have already referred to the statement: . . . new tax scales will be introduced in the first budget. Mr Willis in March 1983, again before the election, said: . . . under Labor's proposed tax scales average tax rates for all taxpayers with incomes below $60,000 will be less . . . That is the sort of statement that was made. It was quite unequivocal. I believe that for us to have had introduced in August a Budget which ignored all of those certainly sustains our contention that there is a contradiction between what has been said and what has been done, and there is confusion for those who are affected by these changes. The tax relief was certainly not provided. The scales remain the same and the Government has set itself to benefit from the revenue windfall as people move into higher tax brackets with higher incomes. On top of this Australians were hit by a series of new indirect tax charges in this Budget , and this illustrates one of the truly great contradictions in Labor's policy. The Labor Party that criticised so much the inequalities of indirect taxes has now effectively embraced this means of boosting government revenue. It not only criticised the inequalities that it saw, but also actually voted against proposals of the former Government to move to a broader indirect tax although they were very modest changes that were proposed at the time. Through its choice in the areas it has hit, the Government has been guilty of imposing the type of regressive indirect impost about which it got so self-righteous when it was in Opposition. I think there should be no doubt about where the Opposition stands on this matter. The former Treasurer has many times put the view that the tax base should be widened to move away from such a heavy reliance on personal income tax . When we tried to make a small start in this direction when we were in government we were greeted by howls of outrage and by parliamentary veto from members of the now Government and the Australian Democrats. The point that Mr Howard, as Treasurer, was making was that indirect taxation is not necessarily regressive, that is, it does not necessarily impose the same burden on all people regardless of ability to pay so long as the Government targets the tax properly. For instance, an often quoted example is a levy on restaurant services , a levy which would affect to a much greater degree the more affluent members of the community who more frequently use such facilities. A tax can become regressive when it is applied to the most widely used goods or services, and this of course is exactly what the Government has done in its first Budget. The new indexed excise charges on petrol, cigarettes and beer will impact on the widest cross-section of the community imaginable and make a mockery of Labor's previous piety on indirect taxation. Let me turn briefly to personal income tax because it is here that we find a current situation of confusion and contradiction which is very relevant to this matter of public importance the Opposition is bringing before the Senate today. The Prime Minister, having failed to deliver his tax cuts for six million people , now seems determined to have a bit each way on personal taxation if he sees any political advantage in statements that he can make to a particular audience. Last Thursday week he launched one of his customary diatribes against the Opposition in the House of Representatives. This time his subject was the action by the Senate in rejecting the Government's iniquitous retrospective taxation legislation which would have imposed punitive new taxation obligations which had not previously existed. The Prime Minister threatened Australians with the possibility of higher personal income taxes as a result of the Senate's action. Not only that, but also he was hypocritical enough to put the revenue loss in terms of what it would mean to the personal taxation burden of the average wage earner. For someone with his record of failing to reduce taxes this was a little hard to accept, but less than a week later we saw Mr Hawke do one of his now famous U-turns on tax policy. While campaigning for the Moreton by-election in Queensland the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten about the terrible revenue problems posed by the Senate's action in rejecting the retrospective legislation. On this occasion to a different audience the Prime Minister tried a different line, something that he has done frequently, in particular with regard to the continuing uranium debate. The line that will be taken depends on the audience. His attitude to levels of personal tax depends on the audience. In the campaign for the Moreton by-election he was making promises of personal tax cuts . On this occasion he held out the prospect of income tax cuts and said: It is our hope that with the economic growth that's going to take place and consistent with our intention to try and reduce the Budget deficit, we would be able to accommodate some cut in personal taxation. That is quite a change in tune in a matter of six days. We might well ask what happened to bring on such a positive approach from the Prime Minister with regard to levels of personal tax. Had there been some startling new and revised economic predictions or had there been some further personal advice from the President of the United States with regard to its economy? Of course not. The only new factor was the audience concerned and the perceived political advantage that he could gain from offering a personal tax reduction. A week earlier the Prime Minister thought he could lambast the Opposition by raising the spectre of personal tax increases. But when he got on the campaign trail, particularly after the people of Queensland had so decisively rejected the tactics tried by Federal Ministers and senators in the dying hours of the Queensland election campaign, he thought he had better try something different. To top off the current confusion and contradictions in the personal income tax area, on the very same day that Mr Hawke was promising and forecasting tax relief in Brisbane, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told a Canberra Press conference that the shortfall would have to be made up basically by the ordinary taxpayer who, he said, would have to pay what has not been paid by the people who benefited from the bottom of the harbour schemes. In fact, the Government's whole approach to its recoupment legislation reeks of a massive double standard. I say this because, by its own actions and miscalculations, the Government has given away more than it stood to gain from the recoupment legislation. In September, Senator Walsh told Senator Chaney that revenue loss from post-Budget changes such as the lower fuel oil excise and the retreat on fortified wines would amount to about $80m, an amount which he said could quite easily be made up from the expected improvement in levels of economic growth. I accept that the levels of economic growth would certainly be able to absorb a change of $80m but we must contrast that with the statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and by Senator Walsh himself with regard to the loss of expected revenue that came from the rejection of the retrospective tax Bills. I move now to another subject that is particularly close to the heart of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. That is the question of capital gains tax. Everyone knows that Senator Button is an unashamed advocate of this form of taxation. In fact, he has gone out of his way to tell us of his determination to have it accepted. Senator Button told Senator Chaney on 21 September: It is my view that there should be a capital-gains tax in Australia and I will continue to advocate it both publicly and within the Government . . . I will put it to the Government at every opportunity that I get, and I will continue to do so. Only Senator Button knows how successful he has been since then. But it is confusing and contradictory for the people of Australia to hear the Government's third most senior Minister advocating a course of action which they were assured at election time would not be pursued. Let me recall another of those statements that were made by Mr Hawke. On 16 February, when he was addressing an audience, he said: 'There will be no new capital gains tax'. I think that that sort of statement, made in February of one year and pursued throughout this year by a number of Ministers, is something that would make us ask just what is the policy of the Government and what is the expectation with regard to a capital gains tax . I want to refer particularly to what the Treasurer, Mr Keating, had said with regard to a capital gains tax because I think this shows the cynical approach that I mentioned earlier with regard to taxation policies and where one looks for political advantage. Mr Keating had talked previously about indirect taxes. In an interview that was reported in the Age in September of this year, he conceded that his statements in the past had been strongly opposed to capital gains tax. He said: The views I've put at Labor Party conferences were views I put with the aim of getting into government. The debate has moved on. We are now the government. So the Government changes the policy. It has one policy to get into government and when it becomes the government it changes the policy. I think on a subject such as a capital gains tax to have a Treasurer speaking in those terms in September and to have Senator Button speaking in those terms, it must lead us to believe that it is a very active option within the range of taxes that will be introduced by the present Government. Obviously there are those who look at current circumstances, look at the audience and decide what the policy will be. But Senator Button agreed with an interviewer recently that in current circumstances the Hawke Government could fairly be seen as a government of pragmatism before ideology. He went on to say: But I assure you that there are still a number of us ideologues lurking about there. He went on to give an example of something which he, as a lurking idealogue, wants to have accepted by the Government. He said: If I say anything about a capital gains tax publicly, which I happen to believe in, I am attacked because that is an issue which Australian society, or sections of it, don't want to talk about. So overtly or covertly, Senator Button is beavering away to get agreement to something which would absolutely contradict what his leader said before the election and such statements on the subject that are made from time to time. But even the Prime Minister these days does not entirely rule out the possibility of a capital gains tax. His last opportunity to rule out a capital gains tax was in the House of Representatives the day after Senator Button's answer to Senator Chaney. When he was asked about his colleague's renewed support for the tax, he dodged the issue entirely and would not repeat his unequivocal campaign pledge. What is more, the Prime Minister himself has foreshadowed early Cabinet consideration of an inquiry into the distribution of wealth in Australia. We might well ask what he meant when he told a Press conference on the seventh of last month, following the first meeting of the Economic Planning and Advisory Council, that the matter had been raised in Caucus, presumably by ideologues not happy with the drift of economic policy, and would be coming before Cabinet before long. This call for a review on wealth generally leads me to another area of concern and confusion which is still prominent in the minds of many Australians. That is the possibility of the introduction of federal death duties . So we have this whole range of matters that I have referred to and which other honourable senators will refer to in turn as we bring before the Senate this matter of public importance relating to the confusion and the contradiction in Labor's tax policies. I think the only assurance that we can see in any of the policies that this Government has is that it is a government that will impose taxes in whatever form it needs to to fund the programs that it has as its objectives. I believe the people of Australia can take no comfort from statements that are made at any particular time because it does not seem to take more than six days or a month to change a direct course from that which had been previously announced. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.38) —I do not know whether to commend the Opposition for leading with its chin on a subject such as this, or to castigate it for its cant and humbug. The fact is that the discredited former Government, for nearly seven years, presided, inert as a stuffed bull frog, over not only the decay of the Australian tax system but also the sustained criminal abuse of that system. The only positive action it took during that time was to shift regressively the burden of taxation, through a mixture of taxation changes, particularly changes in the personal income tax schedule, to the lower income groups, whilst simultaneously imposing the highest level of taxation in total as a proportion of gross domestic product which had ever been applied. The magnitude of its negligence in the administration of the taxation laws was finally flushed out by the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, ironically, a Commission set up by the discredited former Prime Minister with the intention of quickly destroying the Ship Painters and Dockers Union and no doubt, he hoped, simultaneously sections of the Australian Labor Party, turned out to be a Commission which instead finished up bagging many Liberal scalps. What Mr Fraser thought was an expedient, though cynical, political move, finished up as a shot in the foot or, some might even say, in the head. What the Costigan Commission showed, among many other things, was that for five years a bottom of the harbour prosecution which ought to have been launched, gathered dust in the bottom draw of the Deputy Crown Solicitor's Office in Perth. Through that five years a succession of Liberal Party Attorneys-General, but most importantly the last Liberal Party Attorney-General and present shadow Attorney-General and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Durack, did absolutely nothing about pushing that prosecution. Whether Senator Durack's inertia on that question had anything to do with the fact that approximately half of the members of the Liberal Party Finance Committee in Western Australia have subsequently been revealed as being up to their ears in bottom of the harbour operations themselves and whether it had anything to do with the fact that the Western Australian Liberal Party in the main, or the influential people in it, were up to their ears in bottom of the harbour operations and that they controlled pre-selections for senators in Western Australia, is a matter for speculation. After the revelations of the Costigan Commission the discredited former Treasurer was ultimately forced to table what was aptly described as a telephone book of documents which showed, among other things, the sequence of increasingly desperate letters from the Commissioner of Taxation pleading with the Government to do something about taxation reform, to do something about closing loopholes and to do something about the way in which the High Court of Australia under the then Chief Justice Garfield Barwick was emasculating the taxation Act. There was a succession of increasingly desperate pleas to take action, pleas on which no action was taken. The representatives of that Government with that record who presided in a culpably negligent manner over that chaos for nearly seven years now have the audacity to criticise this Government for not fixing up completely, in a period of seven months, the chaos which it had inherited. The revelations of the Costigan report, of course, prompted, very belatedly, the 1982 unpaid company tax legislation. A cynical, and I note with considerable satisfaction ultimately unsuccessful, attempt was made by the then Prime Minister and the then Government to rescue that Government from the political damage which the revelations of the Costigan Commission had done to it. That action was forced upon the Government by political circumstances and was a cynical act of political expediency. But the real predilections of the Liberal and National parties in this area show still. Indeed, they showed even at the time the previous Government amended the Bill which it originally introduced concerning unpaid company tax. The majority of the members of the Opposition parties accepted, back in 1982, a significant amendment to which I will return in a moment, and continue to protect tax evaders to this day. The Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Bill was finally passed last year by the Parliament with the unanimous support of the Australian Labor Party, the partial support of the Australian Democrats, the partial support of the Liberal and National parties-the governing parties of the day-and surprisingly, in view of some of his subsequent actions, the support of Senator Harradine. The Bill which was originally introduced was amended by a second Bill which included clause 3 (12) which, as I have explained to the Senate previously, exempted from liability shareholders in companies which had been sunk to the bottom of the harbour if those companies had been put into an unsuccessful tax avoidance scheme following the initial transaction, that is, the sale from the directors who controlled the original companies and the first purchasers and directors in the line which ultimately led to the bottom of the harbour. On this very matter, the possible effects of that clause were set out in a letter from the Commissioner of Taxation dated 21 October 1982 to the then Treasurer in which he said, among other things: The Bill has been changed, as you have requested-- That is the insertion of clause 3 (12)- to exclude from its scope cases where there was a post-sale avoidance scheme which, though ultimately unsuccessful, was reasonably expected at the time to be effective. The Commissioner said: I hope that I am wrong, but observe that this change must open up the possibility that some promoters will, even through backdating of documents and the like, now seek to establish that after their purchase of the shares they did in fact put the company into one of the ''reasonably expected to be successful'' avoidance schemes. It may not matter that in execution they botch it up, what will be important is that they can show they tried. That was the advice received by the then Treasurer from the Commissioner of Taxation. The then Treasurer and the then Government nevertheless, in the face of that advice, proceeded with the Bill including that obnoxious and illogical clause to which I have referred and which I have explained. Attempts to remove that obnoxious and illogical clause from the previous Government's Bill-attempts made by the then Opposition last year in an amendment moved by me-were rejected by the Senate, with, if I remember correctly, all members of the Liberal and National parties voting against that amendment. Moreover, it has been common knowledge for five years or perhaps even longer that bogus superannuation funds are being used as a tax avoidance vehicle. Those funds in the private sector fall roughly into three classes. There are funds set up in the private sector, ostensibly for the benefit of employees. There are funds set up for the benefit of the self-employed and business or professional occupation funds. The scope for avoidance which the last two funds provided were closed off in 1980. The private employees' funds, however, have survived to this day. They may not survive for much longer but they survived the duration of the Fraser Government which begs the question: Why, when even the Fraser Government had been forced to take some action against the other two classes of funds which were being abused in a similar way for precisely the same ultimate reasons, were the loopholes closed for two types of funds and not closed for the third type? Leaving aside the possible interpretation, I suppose, of sheer incompetence, one can only speculate as to the reasons why the previous Government took that discriminatory action when it is a matter of public record that many influential figures in the Liberal Party, people who held leading offices in the Liberal Party, have been shown to have personally benefited, in at least one case to the extent of several million dollars, from tax evasion and avoidance schemes. It does however lead one to certain suspicions. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's speech consisted partly of a compendium of errors, several of which I will demonstrate, but concentrated, I suppose, on alleged inconsistencies between statements made by various Government Ministers when in opposition and in government and, in particular, by the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). She drew attention to what she claimed was an inconsistency between statements made by the Prime Minister in the Parliament I think two weeks ago, statements made by the Prime Minister last week and statements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last week concerning the effects of the Senate's rejection of the present Government's attempt to recover the personal tax evaded by people involved in wet Slutzkin or bottom of the harbour schemes. There is in fact no inconsistency. The basic proposition, which indeed is a tautology, is that if a government loses revenue of that magnitude-in this case the May Bill ultimately was estimated to recover $570m; but the principle applies regardless of the magnitude of the revenue-there are three ways in which that can be offset . The deficit in the relevant year or years can be increased, government expenditure can be commensurately reduced, or taxes paid by somebody will have to be increased. There can be a mixture of those three options. But other than embracing a combination of those options or one of those options, there is no way in which the loss of revenue of any magnitude can be offset. All that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had done was draw attention to that fact. The fact that $570m has been lost to revenue does not necessarily preclude a reduction in personal income tax rates or in taxation rates in general in the following year, but it means inevitably that, other things being equal, the magnitude of those taxation cuts must be less than it would otherwise have been. If the taxation route is chosen to correct the hole in the accounts left by the loss of revenue, inevitably some or all other taxpayers must pay more tax than they otherwise would have done. It is that central point which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been driving home. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's principal allegation-I think it was her first allegation-was that the Government had reneged on promises given when in opposition regarding personal income tax. It is correct that the Government was not able to make the adjustments to personal income tax which it had envisaged making and intended to make prior to the election. Senator Guilfoyle said that that pre-election undertaking was a cynical undertaking which the present Prime Minister must have known, at the time he gave it, was not achievable. The present Prime Minister did not know that at the time he gave that undertaking. Some people did know, perhaps, that it was not achievable-principally the discredited former Treasurer, who knew at that stage that a prospective deficit of about $9 billion, on a no policy change basis, was looming up for 1983-84, and who was told in the week before the election in March by the Treasury that the prospective deficit was $9.6 billion. The Australian Labor Party and Mr Hawke, in opposition, did not know those facts. We did not have access to the bureaucracy's forecast at that stage. The figure for the prospective deficit being given by the discredited former Treasurer and the discredited former Prime Minister at the time was $6 billion, a figure which, if correct-which it was not-would have allowed for personal tax cuts of the magnitude forecast by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and the Labor Party, when in opposition, along with the rest of the country, were misled by the former Government as to the true financial situation which was confronting the country. When the truth finally came through to the Labor Party after the federal election, it was realised that it was not possible to implement the tax changes which we had envisaged implementing before the election. After all that, when the record clearly shows that the former Government misled the Labor Party and everyone else about the true dimensions of the financial crisis facing the country, members of the former Government have the chutzpah to come into the Senate and castigate the present Government for allegedly reneging on promises, promises which were given honestly and in good faith but without the knowledge of the extent to which the then Government had misled the country at that time. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle also said-I was astounded by this-that the Government has said that there will be a resources rent tax on coal and oil next year. The Government has said no such thing. The Government and, principally, I have said that we intend to replace the existing levy on crude oil with a rent tax in the next financial year. On many occasions we have expressed-and again it is principally I who have expressed it-the Government's belief that where the present production-related taxes, principally on coal, are high, they ought to be replaced by a rent-type tax, and we have, if not invariably then almost invariably, added that the States have primary taxing rights over coal, on-shore resources such as coal, whereas oil is off-shore, and therefore any such change in the system will require the co-operation of the States. We are seeking that co-operation and we shall continue to do so. Senator Guilfoyle also referred to what I presume was a report in yesterday's edition of the Australian Financial Review of a statement by Mr McGarry, the Managing Director of Australian Oil and Gas, in which he had claimed that the introduction of a resources rent tax will mean that only very large companies will be able to continue as oil explorers and potential producers. I do not know whether Mr McGarry was correctly reported but I know that if he said what he was reported to have said, he is wrong, because the plain fact is that in two very important respects, the proposed change will advantage small companies vis-a-vis large companies. First, it is proposed that the tax be levied on a cash flow basis; in other words, it would not be applicable until net earnings had exceeded total investment in the project. Secondly, we wish to incorporate in the rent tax which we plan to introduce next year-there may be technical difficulties which preclude us ultimately from doing this-some method of transferring the losses from exploration on barren fields, either through the tax system or in some other way. That is an additional measure which, far from doing what Mr McGarry apparently believes it would do, will assist the smaller companies relative to the large companies. The objectives of this Government in taxation, which have been pursued and will continue to be pursued, are those of honesty, fairness and performance, objectives which time is needed to achieve. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.57) —I congratulate Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for bringing to the Senate's attention this matter of public importance, which highlights: The confusion and contradictions of the government's taxation policy. If there were ever any doubt about that confusion, one is confirmed in the view that it exists having just listened to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, outlining his pathetic attempts to justify the lack of action on the part of the Government in honouring its promises in many areas when it was elected on 5 March and since. First, let us address ourselves to two or three matters that Senator Walsh mentioned. He spoke firstly of the bottom of the harbour scheme and said that the recent rejection of the recoupment Bill has resulted in the reduction of $570m in the Government's income. The point is that that sum is a mere $60m in this year's accounts, and of course, it is more than offset by the Government's blunders in its calculations of the amount of revenue to be received by way of excise, some $69m, in respect of fuel. If Senator Walsh is to mislead the Senate in the fashion that he does, he should at least address himself to some of the obvious errors that have occurred in the calculation and formulation of the Budget. The second issue I mention is Senator Walsh's so-called pursuit of tax avoiders who use superannuation schemes. He said that many businesses which establish private superannuation schemes for the benefit of employees do so in order to rip off the taxpayer. He made the point that during the period of office of the Fraser Government, no action had been taken in order to stamp out certain tax avoidance practices with regard to superannuation funds. That is a nonsense, as he well knows. In fact, some three or four months before the election on 5 March , the Fraser Government implemented through the Commissioner of Taxation a whole set of new guidelines for the determination of entitlements of employees and entitlements for deductions by employers under revised arrangements. That was a very stringent set of guidelines which drew very strong objection from the part of the community generally that was interested in this matter and is clearly an indication of the efforts which the Fraser Government went to at that time to ensure that tax avoidance in that area was stamped out. Let us turn to some of the other questions which this Government is seeking in some way to camouflage by the pathetic attempt on the part of Senator Walsh to address himself to these problems. Let us look at some of the promises that the Labor Government has broken in the last eight months since it came to office. It promised a $600m tax reduction for all income earners. It was claimed by the former Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that that would in fact help some six million Australians. It is significant that in this week before the Moreton by-election we are in fact seeing the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, claiming that there will be tax reductions next year. That has been contradicted by his Treasurer (Mr Keating) to some extent, but the truth is that he is attempting once more to mislead the Australian people into believing that the Hawke Government believes in tax reductions. The Hawke Government promised the immediate raising of the tax threshold from some $4,500 to about $5,000. In fact, that did not occur. The Hawke Government promised that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation payments. In the May statement brought down by Treasurer Keating in fact a lump sum superannuation tax was introduced-a punitive tax, a very savage tax-which I will return to shortly. Before the election, the Australian Labor Party claimed that it would not abolish the health rebate, and that it would not abolish the housing interest tax rebate then available to families in Australia. Immediately upon coming to office, it abolished those rebates and imposed an extra $12 or $14 a week on the average family by way of extra taxation loading. It promised that it would not introduce an assets test or an income test on the over 70s. Immediately on coming to office it did so. In South Australia it promised, and its representatives paraded all over the State in the pre-election period promising, that there would be no tax on wine. In fact, in the Budget, it introduced a tax on wine. It promised that there would be no capital gains tax and yet we hear Senator Button in this place at every possible opportunity-he is the No. 3 member in the Hawke Cabinet-claim that he is in favour of a capital gains tax. Is it any wonder that people are confused about that issue? The Australian Labor Party promised that it would not reintroduce an estate duty; yet Senator Robert Ray is on the record in this place as having worked out a scheme for the reintroduction of estate duty by the Labor Party which is to be considered by the appropriate committee, he claims, before the Budget of 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —A very improving document. Senator MESSNER —That is very interesting, but I believe that he was reported upon in the Business Review Weekly in the last few days on this matter. I hope he will make it available to all people. Senator Robert Ray —It is a Fabian Society leaflet. All you need is $1.50, but you are too stingy. Senator MESSNER —That may be his way of squirming out of the issue. The fact is that he is on the public record as advocating an estate duty. He is clearly making his presence felt throughout the committees of the Labor Party, obviously with a view to forcing it on the Australian people. Clearly, he is a most influential senator from Victoria and one who has a lot of power in Caucus. It has been reported in various places that he is a member of the appropriate faction to do that, and clearly the intentions of that faction are to reintroduce an estate duty. One or two other matters were claimed by the present Government before it came to office. It claimed that it would wage unrelenting war on tax avoidance. After seven months in office-or is it eight?-we have not seen one piece of legislation on tax avoidance, with the exception of the bottom of the harbour nonsense which it tried to bring in the other day. Where is the legislation and the Government' s unrelenting attack on tax avoiders which was to reduce the tax burden on the ordinary Australian by ensuring that it got into the tax avoidance industry and destroyed it? Where is the legislation? The Government has made no attempt to do anything. The only anti-avoidance legislation brought in was an attack on the aged. The Government has attacked lump sum superannuation for aged persons and retirees. It has attacked their assets by introducing the assets test on pensioners who looked forward to retirement. It has also introduced an income test for the over 70s. That is its policy. It has attacked the weakest in the community, not the strongest. It is for that reason that it stands condemned for not carrying out its promises. One other very important aspect of the Labor Party's policy oft proclaimed in this place-in fact, helped by the Australian Democrats, defeated legislation in respect of the introduction of sales taxes when we were in power- Senator Jack Evans —On necessities. Senator MESSNER —I am not worried about that, Senator Evans. The important point is that the Government, when in opposition, stated quite clearly that it was opposed to the imposition of higher indirect taxes and would rely more on direct taxes in the form of income tax. That is its principle. That is what it claimed in opposition. In government, in its first Budget, on page 271 of 'Budget Statements 1983-84, Budget Paper No. 1', one finds that there was an increase in set pay-as-you-earn tax revenues projected for this current financial year of 4. 7 per cent. What is the figure for indirect taxes which include sales taxes on ordinary goods? I remind the Senate of how those items were extended to cover such things as airconditioning, which Senator Evans might remember, sunscreens, retreaded tyres and matters of that kind. All of these things added to an increase of double that rate, of some 8.2 per cent increase in indirect taxes, about half of it attributable to direct taxes. The Labor Party has thrown its principles out the window. It does not believe in what it is saying. Let me turn to a particular area of concern, that is, the tax that has been imposed on lump sum superannuation payments. It is perhaps one of the most outrageous methods by which the Government has sought to break its promises. On the eve of the National Economic Summit Conference it promised specifically that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation payments. Nevertheless, less than a month later came the announcement by Treasurer Keating that a tax would be introduced on lump sum superannuation payments. One may remember that it was a most punitive rate of tax. There was to be a rate on sums up to about $100,000 of 30 per cent, rising to about 60 per cent very quickly. There was also the question of how this tax discriminated against the self-employed. It worked to the advantage of some of the employed groups in the community, but there was no attempt to work out the equity principles between the employed group in the community and the self-employed. It introduced a de facto death tax by imposing tax on lump sums payable on death. It did not seek to relieve the armed forces in any way. In fact, people who are forced by virtue of their employment to retire at ages less than normal-for instance, an Army major must retire at the age of about 45 years-are required to pay this tax and thus have their opportunities to buy a house or a business considerably reduced. No information has become available about how the Life Insurance Act will be amended to give us better rates of return on projected annuities. There have been no definitions of what contractual termination payments will be or of those items which are included under the definition of lump sums. There is no other information about whether life insurance was to be caught by this. Subsequently, the Government had to overturn all those statements and, indeed, in late July it came down with a totally modified statement about this as a result of pressure not only from the community but also, more particularly, from the trade union movement, in particular, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government had tried to bluff its way through this problem and is still attempting to do that in the light of the Moreton by-election coming up on Saturday. The truth is that this is an issue of the greatest concern to Australians who look forward to the day when they can provide for their own welfare and their own futures in retirement. They wish to save enough through their efforts in their lifetimes to give themselves independence and security in their old age. This particular policy is aimed at destroying the independence of Australians. It works against the interests of Australians. It treats as tax cheats people who want to accumulate capital for their futures. That is absolutely outrageous in these circumstances. Senator Robert Ray —They get tax deductions. Senator MESSNER —Senator Ray will have his chance to try to convince us about this. The Government has always perceived the tax payable on lump sum superannuation as a tax avoidance device because of the way it has been treated in the past. It has never seen it in terms of an incentive to people to look after themselves. That is the way the Opposition sees it. It is an encouragement for people to provide for their own futures. That is the alternative for which the Opposition stands. There is a clear difference between the views of the Government and the Opposition in this respect. The assets test on pensions-I reiterate that it is an attack on the weakest group in the community-is only more evidence of broken promises on the part of the Government in the tax area. The Government has not faced up to its responsibilities and its claims that it would chase tax cheats and tax avoiders. It has taken the easy way out and attacked the pensioners, the weakest group in the community. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.12) —I guess that listeners would realise that the Senate is aware that today is broadcast day. It is a bit like television ratings time, except that the normal television ratings period brings better entertainment. I do not think there is too much entertainment value in the debate that we are having today, because we are simply dragging out again, the same tired old cliches and blaming each other for today's economic crisis and the taxation system. We are constantly looking backwards. I am astounded that in a debate to consider the existing confusion and contradictions of the government's taxation policy-this, incidentally, is interesting phrasing because one might interpret it to mean not just the Government which happens to be sitting in government today, but any government over the years-participants should come up with only the criticisms of what is and what has been and not with constructive alternatives. I find it very disheartening because, if there is to be an alternative approach to the taxation system by this Parliament, it has to come out of this kind of debate. It has to come out of a constructive approach to the taxation system. It has to come out of a constructive consideration, a gathering together of ideas and a pulling together in a consensus of the objectives of an alternative taxation system. Unfortunately, today we are not looking forward; we are looking backwards. In looking backwards one needs to consider, under this topic of the general confusion and contradictions of taxation policy, the tax system itself. Over the past 20 years it would have been possible at any time to claim that a government 's taxation policies were confusing and contradictory. I do not think that governments necessarily are to blame for that. When one looks at it objectively, one can see that the confusion comes about as a result of the complexity of administering a tax system for millions of individuals and hundreds of thousands of firms. It is a system which requires so many rules and regulations that in the event very few people can understand it. I think the evidence demonstrates that scarcely anybody in this country understands the tax system. One comes to that conclusion when one sees the different interpretations applied to the various tax laws. One comes to that conclusion when one realises that it took 10 years to get into the tax legislation the amendments which were necessary to catch up with the tax avoiders and tax evaders who were ripping off this country . So the tax system is confusing. The motion is valid insofar as its accusation of confusion in the system is concerned. The system is also contradictory. Again , that is inevitable. It is inevitable because when we have a taxation policy that tries to meet a number of contradictory objectives of the various sectors of our community we will finish up with legislation which in itself is contradictory and the administration of which is contradictory. Let us look at some of the alternative objectives and aims. The parties representing various sectors of the community go to an election in an attempt to win votes by promising that they will reform the tax system. They promise that they will improve the tax system; they will make life easier for their constituents. To meet the perceived political and economic goals of the community, those promises are maintained right up to election day. However, when the election is over the economic realities bring the parties back to earth with a thud, as we saw when this Government was elected. I think it is fair to suggest that a tax system generally endeavours to be equitable with the wealthy paying a higher proportion of their incomes; that is the equity facet. On the other hand, in a fundamentally free enterprise system there is a need to build in or to leave in those incentives that motivate the economic endeavour which leads to the creation of greater wealth within a country. Taxation tries to reallocate resources between industries and gives incentives to some industries or organisations at the expense of others. That is a further contradiction. Those who benefit, of course, justify the existing position whilst those who lose out attack it. We saw that during the consideration of the sales tax amendments this year. We will always see it because vested interests are very concerned to protect their interests. Confusion is caused not only by the world out there, but also by the maladministration of the taxation system itself. We had a classic illustration of this with the introduction of the prescribed payments tax, which was badly introduced. It was not satisfactorily administered as far as the people who had to cope with it in the market-place were concerned. There were a number of anomalies, some of which have subsequently been adjusted. I give credit to the Commissioner of Taxation and to the Minister responsible for the prescribed payments tax, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), for taking note of the Senate committee report which made a number of recommendations. But that does not get away from the fact that a tax is confusing when insufficient preparation, planning and communicating are done before a tax is introduced. Another perfect illustration of maladministration was the way in which the means test for the over-70s was introduced. It caused a great deal of fear in a section of the community that should not be subjected to these sorts of anxieties. Certainly we had fed back to us that because of the improper or poor explanation some people were living in fear that they would lose all of their pensions when, in fact, that was not to be the case. I think, with the amount of publicity that has been received recently, it is reasonable to suggest that governments over the years are entitled to be criticised because of the avoidance of taxes through tax evasion schemes. I do not think that it does any government any credit when we look back over the last decade to see the growth of the tax avoidance industry. Nobody in this Parliament over that time could have missed the massive attack on the taxation system in this country that was built up by the tax avoidance and evasion industry. It spent literally hundreds of thousands-if not millions-of dollars to entice people and companies to join in the tax avoidance game. Governments procrastinated and prevaricated, as a result of which, when the final crunch came and that industry could no longer be ignored, legislation was pushed through this Parliament which caused chaos and confusion. It caused anomalies which we are now trying to redress because of poor planning and poor administration. The same thing could be said in regard to the assets test which has created great fears for elderly people. Giving credit to the Government, at least the assets test was planned legislation of which about 15 months notice was given to the community; so there was the opportunity to feed back into Government reactions, responses, proposals and suggestions on that assets test. That is heading in a better direction. I have mentioned the confusion that came about as a result of the recent Budget but let me touch on the sales tax changes which created anomalies in industries such as the swimming pool industry. It created anomalies and precedents in the building industry where, for the first time ever, a building material is sales taxed but all other building materials are exempt. It does really create confusion in an industry when that happens. I think that those anomalies are matched by the anomalies that most governments seem to be afraid to pick up, such as capital gains taxes, the lack of which creates a massive anomaly in our taxation system because it is possible to make millions and millions of dollars in what are clearly taxable profits in any other country in the world except this one. In this country one can make these profits and not pay one red cent of tax on a capital gain. Senator Tate —Are you advocating that? Senator JACK EVANS —Yes, indeed, and have been for some time. The Australian Democrats are not ashamed or afraid to come out and say that this is a tax avoidance industry in itself, which neither the Australian Labor Party nor the Liberal Party has yet been willing to pick up. When the Labor Party Government does pick it up, it will have our support. There are some further problems but instead of looking at them in my final few minutes I will talk about the alternative new direction. The Australian Democrats have proposed that all parties should come together and discuss the tax system, looking not just at the need for long term, indicative planning procedures-I have a motion on notice before the Senate to do that-or at rolling budget systems but at a comprehensive long term plan to rationalise Australia's tax laws on an all-party basis. If we do not get to an all-party basis to reform the taxation system, then it is going to suffer the problems of the pendulum of changing governments over the years ahead. The new tax system would need to be carefully explained. It would need to be thoroughly thought through, certainly a lot better thought through than some of the tax legislation we have seen over the last few years. It would need to be based on the consensus and common aims of the major parties-the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats-because with that consensus we could sell a reformed tax system to the people of Australia. Then it would need to be phased in so that people and firms could prepare for the anticipated changes that would come about as a result of a reformed tax system. As part of that reform we would need to look at some of the options that individual parties in government are quite understandably afraid to consider- options such as a wealth tax, the capital gains tax to which I referred, an expenditure tax or a value added tax. One of the options being considered by the Government at the moment is the resource rental tax which would be a much simpler tax not just to apply. As far as most of the people in the resource area are concerned, it would remove the proliferation of taxes and charges from which they currently suffer. We would need to look at the elimination of payroll tax, that inquitous tax which penalises firms for employing more people, and we would need to look again at the re-introduction of automatic tax indexation to keep governments honest. We would need to look at the whole industry of tax avoidance and tax evasion because although it was predicted in only 1982 that we could save up to $10 billion a year if we cleaned up the avoidance and tax evasion industry, in fact it appears that we will be lucky now to get $1 billion. I think that the people of Australia are justifiably very much in support of this matter of public importance which refers to the confusion and contradiction of government-all governments-taxation policies because it is governments that suffer. They have suffered the loss over the last 10 years of $9 billion of that $10 billion which was lost in the tax avoidance and evasion industry. Some of those people are suffering now when governments, in an endeavour to catch up for that loss to government, are hitting people who do not deserve to be hit, who are being unjustly treated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.27) —Once again the chamber is confronted by an impertinent debate brought on by Opposition senators who are quite breathtaking in their audacity, having made the accusation that this Government is confused and contradictory in its pursuit of taxation policy. If there has been any stumbling in this Government's proposals to raise revenue in order to fund the various projects, schemes and undertakings for which we have a mandate from the Australian people, it is due entirely to the frustrations and impediments put in the way of that raising of revenue by the honourable senators who sit oppose in this chamber. Tax avoidance legislation has been brought into this chamber twice in the few months that we have been in government and it has been repudiated by those honourable senators opposite. Governments do not raise taxes; they propose them. Under our democratic system those taxes need the concurrence of parliament before they are imposed on people . This chamber's failure to concur with Government proposals to deal with tax avoidance has been a major cause of the rearrangement in certain matters that we have had to undertake. Senator Messner, in his bluff and bluster, accused us of attacking the frail and elderly in the community. I ask those ordinary taxpayers in the community to consider how much more we could do for the frail and elderly if we had the hundreds of millions of dollars available to us which we proposed to raise by way of the tax avoidance legislation to do with bottom of the harbour schemes and their ramifications. A total of $570m was to be raised under the first proposal and $270m under the second proposal. That would have gone a long way towards alleviating the distress of the frail and elderly but, as I say , it was repudiated by those honourable senators who now have the audacity to bring this charge against the Government today. Who in this chamber has concurred in the perverting of the best legal and accounting brains in our nation to serve the selfish ends of the tax avoiders? It is the honourable senators who sit opposite. I exclude Senator Jack Evans from these remarks; I found his contribution today, in the usual way, to demonstrate a moderate and sensible appreciation of this matter. In relation to Liberal and National Party members, one can only say that they have shown breathtaking audacity and hypocrisy. The ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers of this country have had to bear an increasing burden over the years those parties were in government and they are still burdened because of the failure of those opposite, when in government and now in opposition, to support a decent attack on tax avoidance. They have hidden behind all sorts of formulae to justify their refusal to concur in this attempt to construct a fairer and more equitable tax system, but everyone knows that they are simply protecting those who are closer to them in the political sense. Where the whole attack of the Opposition today falls completely to the ground is in its accusation of confusion and contradiction. There has been a failure altogether to recognise and to give due credit to this Government's method of operation and acknowledge the fact that it is a good listener. Honourable senators opposite, I believe, are guilty of confusion. They confuse a willingness to negotiate, a willingness to listen. So long as a fair case is fairly presented-of course, we will not give way to blackmail as was attempted by the airline pilots in relation to a further modification of the superannuation taxation arrangements-this Government will modify the method of operation of a particular proposal. It will not change the principles. This Government will not be diverted from making hard decisions and achieving a certain goal, but in achieving that goal and the modifications that might be required to ensure the most fair operation of the method of raising the tax in relation to those matters, we are always willing to listen, consult and negotiate to try to do the best possible thing. In that way, rather than being guilty of confusion, I believe we are perhaps guilty of something that is new on the Australian political scene, that is, an ability to stand back from our first decision as to the method of going about a particular proposal and listening intently to those who have a fair case to make. In relation to the taxation on lump sum superannuation payments, which was raised by Senator Messner, we say, and have said right from the beginning, that, unless those lump sum payments are invested in a way which yields an annual income so as to relieve the Australian Treasury of the payment of social security benefits to those people who could afford thereby to fund their own retirement, taxation must go ahead. We have made it very clear that ordinary taxpayers should not have to supplement the retirement income of those who, by an astute investment of their lump sum payment, could provide for their own retirement. I entirely agree with Senator Messner who said that lump sum payments are part of an Australian way of providing for retirement-that people can look forward to those years. I agree entirely, but there is no reason why the Australian taxpayer should supplement that provision by way of payment of social security benefits to those who, as I say, by an astute investment of the lump sum payment, could give themselves an annual income. We have modified the method of bringing about that goal. Is that not a good thing? Would the Australian people prefer a government which rigidly and without compromise refused to budge one inch from the method of bringing about some desired social goal? We do not operate that way. I hope that we never do. I now turn to the cash economy of which I think Senator Jack Evans made some mention. We were the first government to identify the problem. The fact is that many people involved in the cash economy, particularly building construction firms, have been engaged in an environment in which the payment of tax has been nil or very minimal. In the first assault on that cash economy by any Australian government, we made some errors in the accumulation of paper work and in some of the details and procedures which perhaps ought to be followed. But our goal was absolutely certain and clear. It cannot be compromised. Our goal is that a person who is paid cash for undertaking particular work ought to make, in the same way as a PAYE taxpayer does, some contribution to the Treasury along the way in the course of the year. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth from honourable senators opposite concerning the application of this broad principle, which is a burden shared by most Australian taxpayers, to those persons, particularly those in the building industry. In fact, on examination the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations found that the proposal was well justified. The hearings of that Committee quelled many of the fears and allayed many of the misgivings of those involved in the industries affected. The Government responded very speedily and readily to some of the suggestions of the Committee to tidy up the paper work and to expedite the consideration of those who need to be subject to the particular provisions. There was nothing confused or contradictory in the goal and in the approach set by the government. It was merely a question of listening to a good case where it was made and making some small adjustments. I can record my appreciation of the Government's ready response to my pleas on behalf of Tasmanian industries-I know they were shared by other honourable senators-in relation to the imposition of a 9c a litre tax on fuel oil and heating oil in the August Budget. Clearly, this would have added intolerable costs to the operations of many industries and firms. One thinks of all those industries which use fuel oil to raise steam, whether they be in the vegetable or milk processing fields, such as Edgells and United Milk Tasmania Ltd; raw material users, such as Tioxide Australia Pty Ltd, Comalco Ltd and TEMPO, the Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Co. Pty Ltd; timber-based industries, such as Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd; and major public institutions, such as hospitals. This proposal had a very deleterious impact on all of these industries. Within 24 hours, the Government, having realised that there had been an error in the figuring of the Budget, remedied the situation. As I say, there was a very speedy response to a case properly made and fairly presented. Rather than being accused of confusion, I think the Government ought to be commended for its ability to respond so readily to these sorts of cases when they are properly made. Senator Jack Evans, very properly I think, broadened the scope of this discussion to include, beyond personal attacks, the question of taxation of industries. He stressed the importance of achieving a fair and even-handed balance and also of achieving what social objectives we think are important for the creation of wealth and jobs via industry assistance through the taxation system. Once again, this Government has identified high technology and new industries as being extremely important to the future generation of such wealth and jobs within the Australian economy. Both the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, have taken a very leading role in devising a taxation system or regime which will allow the creation, for the first time in Australia, of a capital venture market for the encouragement of such high technology industries. As honourable senators will know, this flows from the report of Sir Frank Espie, the Chairman of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences. He indicated what ought to be done. I give the former Government credit for commissioning the report. This Government has taken up the challenge, has implemented the report and has used the taxation system to help achieve that desirable social objective . We have agreed to forego $20m of revenue in order to generate some $40m for investment in some of those high risk industries. I do not have time to outline the establishment of the management and investment company licensing board scheme which will underpin that taxation arrangement. Under that scheme licensed management and investment companies will be able to claim a 100 per cent tax deduction in the year of the subscription. In that way we believe all the skills, innovative ability and scientific expertise in the Australian community, which is very considerable, can be allied with the skills of our work force, which is well educated, and with the provision of that venture capital so that we can generate the production of wealth and the creation of jobs within the Australian manufacturing sector. In those ways I believe the taxation system is once again being used by this Government, not in a confused and contradictory way, but in a very clear-headed way with desirable social goals being set and the necessary steps being taken, even where it involves a foregoing of revenue in order to achieve that goal. Finally, there would be nothing more contradictory or confusing than for a government to have the best laws in the world but to refuse to give to the administrators of those laws the sinews of war to do battle to ensure that those laws are observed. If anything could be said to be a major failing of the previous Government, and I believe a cause of its downfall, it was the fact that in both the tax administration area and in the administration of the Crown Solicitor's Office there was a failure either to provide the sinews of war or adequately to supervise the discharge of responsibilities by those who were responsible. I know that at Estimates committee meetings senators on this side of the chamber pleaded year after year with the then Government to do away with the artificial staff ceilings and the apparent saving of salaries in order to give to the Commissioner of Taxation the soldiers he needed in the battle with the tax avoiders. Those soldiers were never provided. Again the work of senators on this side of the chamber, who are now part of the Government, at Estimates committee meetings exposed much of the maladministration in the Crown Solicitor' s Office which led to failure to prosecute instances of tax avoidance which would have been test cases and perhaps would have led to the nipping in the bud of the bottom of the harbour scheme which deprived the revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars. Opposition senators who have the audacity to bring this debate before the chamber this afternoon presided, through their Ministers, over the most lax system of government administration which has ever been the misfortune of the Australian taxpayer, who then had to bear the burden of that failure. Indeed, of course, as we all know, the Perth Crown Solicitor's Office was being used by one figure to run an escort agency. While he was pursuing a folly of his own the taxation laws of this country were left wilting and were not being administered by that office with all the consequences which, as I said, the ordinary taxpayers have had to bear. I conclude by saying that it thoroughly ill becomes the Opposition to make the charge that it has made today. Not only has there been a total failure to substantiate it but also it is so riddled with hypocrisy as not to merit the support of this chamber. I am sure that the Opposition's approach to taxation matters will never gain the support of the people of Australia as it did not on 5 March. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.42) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance raised by my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, namely, the confusion and contradictions of the Government's taxation policy. My colleague Senator Tate in his usual honest way acknowledged five minutes ago that the Government was indeed a good listener. The impression that I got was that it was prepared to be flexible and willing to change. Is not that an indictment from the Government side of the Government's confusion and uncertainty? This Government, which was prepared to make a whole list of election promises, came back after the Budget was presented and said: 'Well, maybe we have to look again . We have to listen to some other views in the community-the trade union movement and so on'. What an indictment! Our honest Senator Tate gave an example which is very pertinent to the debate from our own Tasmanian situation. The Budget indirect tax increases applying to fuel would have had a horrendous effect on transport costs in Tasmania. We acknowledge that as a result of representations this policy was changed because an error had been made. The confusion and changes indicate that the Government's whole Budget policy was not thought through carefully. This sort of approach has been fairly costly to business because business requires certainty and confidence. However, unfortunately these requirements have been lacking. I believe that a significant factor which contributed to Mr Hawke's win in the March election was his promises in the taxation field. I think it is acknowledged within the Australian community that the hip-pocket nerve is very sensitive in terms of where a person will place his vote at the next election. However, we have seen a host of broken promises. Mr Hawke said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. They were snatched back all right. He promised immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians. These reductions did not eventuate. Time and again the Australian Labor Party emphasised that there would be no change to the tax on lump sum superannuation payments and other lump sum retirement payments. We have seen a whole host of changes and uncertainty. I do not believe that the situation is clear even at present. We had a promise that the interest rebate on home loans would be maintained. Again, this benefit was chopped off. The Labor Party promised that the health insurance rebate would be kept until the introduction of Medicare. What happened? The rebate was wiped out on 30 June . The Labor Party promised not to means test the pensions of the over-70-year olds. As my colleague Senator Messner said, these are the people who are least able to help themselves. It promised that it would not introduce an assets test. The Labor Party promised that it would not impose a sales tax on retreaded tyres. But what happened? The Government imposed that tax. What it is effectively doing is exporting jobs from small Australian firms. This decision means that new tyres will be imported. The Labor Party promised to lift the tax threshold to $5,000 for ordinary citizens and $5,893 for pensioners. But what has happened? The Government has broken those promises. Perhaps the only consistent line of policy in relation to taxation measures that one can deduce is that the Labor Party has rejected its pre-election promises. That is the only consistent line that I think anybody could see in relation to the whole area of Labor Party policy on taxation. The line that the Government continually gives as an excuse or as a reason for such rejection is that it inherited a deficit far greater than it expected. Initially I think that many members of the public believed that the deficit that the Labor Government inherited was the deficit for the current year 1982-83. In fact, one senator in this place propounded that theory for a while. Instead, we are talking about the 'projected' deficit for 1983-84. But let us get the facts straight. The Labor Party alleged that it inherited a deficit of $9.6 billion. However, this is the 'projected' deficit for the next year. That deficit assumed certain progressions and certain income levels which were quite unrealistic because they were taken from a very low base which was influenced by the international recession and the drought. I emphasise that very unreal levels were used to determine the growth factors. What can one expect if the expenditure side is overstated and growth factors are understated? Naturally, if one does that one will be left with a figure such as $9.6 billion. But that is an illusory figure. If the Government's expressions of concern about its difficult fiscal position were genuine it would not have cut out expenditure by the previous Government of $1,271m and substituted its own expenditure program of $2,500m in accordance with the priorities of its own choosing. I think that is a very significant point. The Government has cut out many of the previous Government's proposals, many of which were essentially job creating, and has substituted in dollar terms more than twice that expenditure in its own proposals. No wonder the deficit will rise. Let us look at some of the facts. During the seven years of the Fraser Government the increase in spending in real terms was about two per cent. Under the Labor Budget the increase will be about 7 1/2 per cent in real terms. There was a consistent increase of 2 per cent during the previous seven years of the Fraser Government, but in the first year of office of the Labor Government the increase amounted to 7 1/2 per cent in real terms. The Labor Government's housing policy transferred expenditure from the private sector to the public sector. This sort of expression of socialisation is again manifested in Medicare . An additional $1.7 billion has to be raised in taxes. This Government has a record of taking incentives away. Perhaps nowhere is the confusion greater than in the proposal for the introduction of a Resources rental tax. The Minister for Energy and Resources, Senator Walsh, has pushed the virtues of this tax. Perhaps of all the ALP Ministers, Senator Walsh should be the last one to push such an idea. I would have expected a Minister for Energy and Resources to put forward policies that would encourage development in mining, oil exploration and so on. What is he doing? He is putting the kibosh on it all the time with threats of a resources rental tax which will, essentially, reduce incentives. The acceptance of the idea of a resources rental tax fails to acknowledge the high costs of exploration and the risks that are associated, not only with exploration, but also with the probability of failure. The costs of failure in most cases exceed the cost of return. There must be an inducement or reward in such an environment to explore for oil and develop mines not only for the investment but also for the risk taking. The Labor Party fails to acknowledge this essential ingredient. If the Government goes ahead with the introduction of a resources rental tax which has been proposed by Senator Walsh, it would tend to recover from the companies involved in risk taking a further tax, essentially a super-profits tax . That is what it would amount to; that is the fear. What would be the effects of a resources rental tax? It has been alleged that it would tend to diminish Australian ownership in such ventures. Surely this is contrary to ALP policy which we are, from time to time, assured is designed to encourage Australian ownership. Its policy in this area is contrary to that philosophy. This tax would tend to reduce competitiveness. Under such an arrangement the States would be expected to forgo royalty income. An environment of distrust over the dams compensation to the Tasmanian Government or this Government's attitude towards the Queensland Government is not a good environment for those States to expect a fair slice of the resources rental tax in return for their giving up their royalty incomes. What incentives would there be for the States to encourage mining and oil exploration? Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, continues, from time to time, to raise the probability of a Labor government introducing a capital gains tax. The electorate and certainly people on this side of the chamber are unsure whether those are personal statements or whether he is testing the waters of public opinion on behalf of the Government to get a public reaction. I think it is time for a definitive statement to clarify the uncertainty and confusion in this area. The Labor Party is not content to float only the possibility of a capital gains tax but also some members are pushing for a wealth tax. This adds confusion to confusion. A wealth tax imposes a tax on assets, which assets do not always give rise to profits or increments in a cash form from which the tax is to be paid, thereby rendering the assets liable for disposal to pay that tax. The possibility of a reintroduction of death duties has also been raised. This again adds confusion to confusion. One of the main features of Labor Party policy was to attack tax avoidance. What has it done? Its attack has been largely limited to a series of measures concerned with so-called bottom of the harbour schemes. What did it try to do? It sought to introduce new taxes and to impose those new taxes retrospectively on amounts which were not previously assessable. It based its series of Bills on reconstructing a set of non-commercial, hypothetical circumstances that could not normally have been followed by any business. So it sought to impose a new tax retrospectively. That is the extent of what it tried to do in stopping tax avoidance. The truth is that John Howard effectively stopped tax avoidance in his term as Treasurer. The Government's further confusion is illustrated by what it has done in relation to a wine tax. In the first place it said it would not introduce a wine tax. However, it was included in the Budget. The position has subsequently been changed. A further promise of personal tax cuts was made before the Budget, but no tax cuts were included in the Budget. However, along came the Moreton by-election and there were more promises of tax cuts. This puts the lie to what Senator Walsh and others have said that because of the rejection of the bottom of the harbour scheme legislation further taxes will have to be imposed. Who are we to believe? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.57) —If any confusion and contradiction exist in regard to taxation policy they are certainly on the other side of the chamber. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle started her speech on this matter by saying that there was a degree of suspicion and cynicism about this Government's taxation policy. Honourable senators would agree that, in general, the community regards the question of politicians and taxation with a degree of cynicism. I suggest the origins of that go back to 1977 when the Liberal Party in government put through a Budget that it knew was fairly dodgy in most of its premises and then went to the electorate with the promise of taxation cuts for all. Newspapers came out with the headlines 'A fistful of dollars'. That was a most cynical exercise because on its return to government it did not have any intention of carrying out that policy of tax cuts. The cynicism in the community dates back to the policy of the Liberal Party. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle went on to say that the Australian Labor Party has reneged on its promises in such areas as the assets test and the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. It is interesting to note that the real confusion exists with those sitting opposite. Two points of view come forward from that side of the chamber. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and others have the view that we are inconsistent in regard to the assets test or that we have reneged on the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. We do nor hear from those people whether what we are now doing is right or wrong. We have no such problem with Senator Messner. He seems to be gullible enough to accept anything that the first carpetbagger brings to him. He is quite happy to go along opposing, in principle, the assets test and the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. He has absolutely no worry about whether the policy is right or wrong. He sees an opportunistic opening and darts in and puts the temporary Liberal line on it. I have no doubt, and everybody knows, that if by some accident or some horrific event in the future the Liberals come back to power in the next two to three years tax on superannuation will not be taken away and the assets test on pensions will not be removed. Senator Watson may be gullible enough to believe that the assets test will be removed but I can tell him now that it will not be, that the majority in his party probably supports both proposals and both attitudes. The only reason that the Opposition is coming forward with this matter of public importance is that it thinks it can make some opportunistic gains in the electorate. Senator Messner made some fairly woolly statements. One of the first was that this Government had not taken one measure against tax avoidance in spite of its promises. Senator Messner must have been asleep during the whole debate on the deduction of source tax Bill, the reference from the Senate to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations and the report of the Committee. In fact, I remember participating in that debate, yet obviously he missed that point. I will later examine the attitude of the Opposition towards the bottom of the harbour legislation which we have twice brought into this place and which has been defeated. Senator Jack Evans made the usual Australian Democrat contribution here. I call it the Pontius Pilate syndrome. He said: 'A curse on all houses'. He said that if only we were all nice, stopped fighting amongst ourselves and let natural policy come out everything would become some sort of modern day Camelot. He, of course, does have the best of all worlds, better than the Liberal Party or the Australian Labor Party. He will never have the experience of government, its conflicting demands, the problems of raising revenue or the problems of expenditure. I guess the one thing that Senator Watson and I would agree on is that the Australian Democrats will never have those problems. I think the Liberal Party has put this case forward today just as a feel-out. We have had a lot of matters of public importance since we came back after the election. We have had about five on uranium and a few on wages policy. None of those have worked very well, so someone got a bright idea at 8 o'clock this morning and said: 'Let's have a try-out on tax policy'. Are the Liberals really concerned on this issue? There has hardly been a question on taxation policy since we came into Government. We have had questions on dams, on sex legislation and on this and that, but we have had virtually nothing on taxation. Honourable senators can look at the record of the Estimates committees. Members of the Opposition had the opportunity to ask questions of the people from the Taxation Office who appeared before those committees. They have hardly asked a question on taxation policy. Up until today the Opposition has not shown much interest in it. The main thrust of what the Liberal Party has been saying in this chamber today is that the Labor Party has not been able to fulfil every election promise that it made. There has been no dispute on this side that we have not been able to fulfil every promise we made. We made those promises in good faith. There is no getting out of the fact that in the lead-up to the election the most the 1983-84 Budget deficit was going to be in the expectation of the people in the community was $6 billion. It was only on the Monday before the election that the figure of $9.6 billion was suggested to the then Government. Did Mr Howard release that information? He went and saw the then Prime Minister and said: 'Look, there is a $9.6 billion deficit. What should we do?' The bloke who was to break down on election night replied: 'Look, don't release it. It could influence the election '. Of course, it would have influenced the election. When we came into office we were faced with finding another $3.6 billion, let alone trying to implement the rest of the policies. Therefore, being able to maintain a promise for income tax relief in that context was absolutely impossible. In a debate about contradictions and confusions, it is very interesting that no one from the National Party participated. These are the Opposition's allies in this chamber and across the hall. None of them participated in this debate and we know that is because of their rather quaint views on taxation. They are a bit like the Flat Earth Society. They support a flat rate taxation. No one opposite in the Liberal Party, I would suggest, supports that. But that is where the confusion is. What is the Opposition going to do when it next gets back into government? Will it kotow to the National Party line that suggests there will be a 20 or 25 per cent flat tax? I suggest that if the Opposition wants to clear up the confusion and contradiction it should first tackle that issue. I read Mr Peacock's statement on taxation of 30 September of this year. He has come up with hardly one original idea in relation to taxation. He has said only that there must be a move from direct taxation to indirect taxation but no upping of the overall level of taxation. That is all he has said. If that is his answer, I think the electorate will reject it absolutely. All he is really arguing for, as most Liberals do, is a redistribution of income from the poor to the rich. The next question is when the Liberal Party is going to develop a tax policy. I am informed that at its recent Federal Council one third of the motions were on taxation, which again probably reflects the confusion that exists within the Liberal Party. It had many motions on all sorts of aspects of taxation. It is totally confused in its thinking. I think the Liberal Party is somewhat misguided in the way it is approaching politics at the moment. It is obvious to anyone who read the Valder report that the Liberal Party, or a majority in the Liberal Party, believes that the Party get back into power by restructuring its organisation. It is concentrating on internal matters and it is not developing relevant policies for the Australian community. There seems to be no desire at all among those opposite and those in the Liberal Party generally to develop alternative and coherent policies to put to the electorate. Instead, the Liberal Party is obsessed with restructuring its branches, with changing its preselection systems. We had the classic case in Victoria in a conference a few months ago when one of the delegates got up and said: 'The problem with the Liberal Party is that it is putting morons into Parliament'. He described the people it is endorsing as wets, as wanks and as wimps. That is his description of people who were being endorsed from the Victorian branch of the Party. If honourable senators read the Valder report they will see it has those same obsessions. I can give some advice to the Liberal Party from personal experience. The Labor Party, after its defeat in 1977, went through the same experience. When we lost that election we did not look at our policy and develop new policy; we looked at our internal organisation. I can tell honourable senators that nothing we did then to our internal organisation improved our chances of winning government one iota. Our chances of winning government started to improve when we actually started to develop alternative policies instead of giving in to the temptation of obsessive internal soul searching that the Liberal Party is apparently going through now. The advice is: Get out and develop some policy. Let us hear what the Opposition's tax policy is. Let us hear what its wages policy is. But we never do. All we hear are obtuse forms of matters of public importance like we have today. I did promise to come back to one other point, and that is the matter of bottom of the harbour taxation. Another reason we have been unable to keep every promise is that one of the things we did promise was to legislate again in this area. We put everyone on notice last year about the sort of legislation we thought should be brought before these chambers. We fought on those issues at election time. We came into this House with a Bill passed by a massive majority in the House of Representatives, and what happened? The Opposition here, with a couple of allies from other parties, knocked out the Bill. It unreservedly knocked it out. Its record on this is just typical of the opportunism of the Liberal Party. What it says is this: 'There are certain imutable principles, one of which is retrospectivity. You can never indulge in retrospective tax legislation'. But of course there is always the let-out clause for the Liberal Party. Unless it is threatened with being thrown out of office, it will suddenly indulge in retrospectivity. That is what happened last spring. A majority in the party may have said that retrospectivity is an immutable principle but, with the threat of being thrown out of office, suddenly the legislation came in. Now there is no threat of the Liberal Party being thrown out of office-that has happened already-it reverts to its old principles. A very similar thing happened in Victoria some years ago with the question of pecuniary interest, if I may just draw an analogy. No Victorian Liberal in fact supported the disclosure of pecuniary interest of parliamentarians and a register thereof until the land deals came about. Suddenly the Liberal Government was under threat and suddenly it compromised its preferences. As I said before, there is no point in this matter of public importance. I think the Government's tax policies have been quite consistent and quite justifiable in rational terms. Everyone is on notice that the next Budget will contain major taxation reforms. I should like to make one final point. It relates to capital gains tax and wealth tax. I want to comment on the question that has been raised by the Opposition in relation to death duties, wealth tax or capital gains tax. My name was mentioned by Senator Messner when he said that I was trying to run away from the issue. I do not run away from the issue at all . I believe that there should be death duties in this country. I believe also that the Commonwealth Government, sooner or later, will have to stand up to State governments which artificially give away revenue raising projects to attract more business or more people to their particular States at the expense of others. I hope honourable senators opposite realise the dimensions of that problem. We cannot keep reducing the tax base of States by having one State continually opt out in order to encourage all sorts of business to that one State thus giving it the competitive advantage. That is what happened with death duties in the mid and late 1970s. One State gave them up and that meant that they were not viable in other States. That does not mean that the basic tax was wrong. I have given reason that those particular taxes were dispensed with. Sooner or later the Opposition will have to face the fact, as we do, that we cannot afford to have one particular State government giving up certain taxes to attract businesses to it and then expecting the Federal Government to pick up the bill, to reimburse that State because it is losing revenue. As I said earlier, the Opposition has not made out a case in this regard. It has not today proved in any way that the Labor Party Government policies are confused or contradictory. The one thing it has proved is that its own policies and attitudes are not only confusing and contradictory but also virtually non- existent. Assent to the following Bills reported: Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid Costs) Bill 1983 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1983 Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Meat Inspection Bill 1983 Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983 Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows: 1. Marine Oil Spill Risk in Australia-Report published by the Bureau of Transport Economics 2. Tobacco Industry Trust Account-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955 3. Oilseeds Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977 4. Department of Primary Industry-Annual Report 1982-83 5. Australian Dairy Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972 6. Australian Electoral Office-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 15A of the Australian Electoral Office Act 1983 7. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 8. Commonwealth Fire Board-Annual Report 1982-83 9. Compensation (Commonealth Government Employees) Act 1971-Amendments-Report by the Administrative Review Council 10. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Policies: Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 1 November 1983 Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Oilseeds Research Committee report explains briefly the money that has come into government from levy collections from the industry. We pass such levy collection Bills regularly in this House. It is significant that there was a decrease in levy collections of $70,000 from the previous year, down to $229,270 mainly because of the bad drought conditions that prevailed over much of the continent. Nonetheless, the money is there, together with the contributions from the Commonwealth. It is being used in many and various ways towards the betterment of the industry. I think it is serving the purpose for which it was laid down. If one section of primary industry cannot recoup its costs it must become more efficient if those who are involved in it are to survive. Levies are one method by which the industry can contribute towards experimentation to become more efficient. If nobody else wishes to speak on this paper, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I commend the Department of Primary Industry on the report that it has produced. I accept it as being a good description of what has transpired. I am also pleased to see that its activities for the year did not rate a mention in the social pages of the Auditor-General's report. But I do believe that it would be prudent to make a few suggestions about the presentation of reports such as this from a department as large and as diverse as this. I believe that there is not enough information to help people at large-businesses, importers and exporters- make decisions for the future. I believe that suggestions by the Department on the operation of the markets and management of the country in the future would be most desirable. I believe, for instance, that matters to do with the international situation, matters relating to the recovery from the drought, the effects of the broad currency fluctuations that have arisen, the price of oil, the relativity of imports, the products that we meet on the world market and matters such as this need to be covered to some extent in the report before us. Many of our industries are not looking forward with any great joy to the short to medium term future. We have only to look, for example, at the meat industry, the sugar industry, the fat lamb industry and some of the vegetable growers to see that we need to be giving them some guidance. If we cannot get it through the report of the Department of Primary Industry, there is really no other paper which will be of much use. Much of the information in the journal is now 15 to 18 months out of date, starting from July 1982. I see the report as a valuable document. I would again commend the Department on a good chronicle on what has transpired but I do make the suggestion that it should be more extensive. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would say that more than most primary industries the dairy industry is facing a very uncertain future because of the way it is currently going. For instance, I refer to the overproduction question. Overproduction looks like amounting to about 20 per cent this year and the problem will not go away of its own accord, nor will the matters which were raised by the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent report. Those matters, too, will have to be dealt with. I have said it before and I would like to repeat that more and more research needs to be done in the dairy industry to make sure that it becomes more efficient still. The fundamental matters of feeding and breeding are just as important now as they were 40 or 50 years ago and I think they still probably offer us about just as much chance of improvement even yet. There are many areas in which the Research Committee can still do a lot of valuable work. I touch specifically on a couple of those areas. Before I do, I must draw attention to the mountains of dairy produce that are still in the European Economic Community and the United States of America and the fact that those products are going to be disposed of. They are most likely to be disposed of in areas which we have considered to be our markets. They will not be our markets for much longer because these countries which are still subsidising their overproduction are going to dispose of that overproduction. There are two things that I would like to mention: Firstly, the matter of education. The industry of the future will survive or fail on the competence, or lack of it, that the industry itself displays. I read the report from the Tasmanian training authority this week which now claims that more than 10 per cent of producers in the industry have undertaken various training courses. I would like to see this figure reach 50 per cent in the next three or four years before we go on to cope with the full 100 per cent. I believe that the two most important matters in the research area must be the training and dissemination of knowledge on the one hand and the merchandising and marketing of the product on the other hand. Without these two things the industry will not be able to survive in a world competitive situation. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.21) —I would like to support the remarks made by Senator Archer. I made the point when speaking to the Oilseeds Research Committee annual report that we had imposed a levy on the industry. This is another matter in relation to which we have recently passed legislation to impose a levy so that industry contributes towards its future. As with all other primary industries, the dairy industry cannot recoup its costs in the market place as an ordinary manufacturer can. An ordinary manufacturer can add up his costs and include them in the price of his product. The industry has to operate in a competitive free market situation. The only way, of course, for this industry to survive is for it to improve. In my own State of Queensland in the last decade thousands of dairy farmers have left the industry yet those who have remained are able to meet the slowly increasing market. That is the only way that it can be done. The industry itself contributed $535,187. Of course, the Commonwealth Government also made a contribution. As Senator Archer said, that money was spent in many ways, not the least of which concerns educational programs. Factory workers are provided with study grants and travel grants. The money allocated is spread amongst the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, various departments of primary industries and universities. They all contribute in some way to making this industry more efficient, helping it to survive, helping us to meet our markets and, of course, in helping to eradicate some of the diseases which affect the industry. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is only a very slim report but it contains some very interesting facts and statistics. In the section that deals with the general elections that were held on 5 March 1983, it says: The announcement was followed on 4 February by the issue of Writs for the election of 125 members of the House of Representatives and for the election 64 Senators. The electoral rolls closed at 6 p.m. on the same day. I believe that is one of the great scandals of recent elections in this country. Further, under the heading 'Election Advertising', the report states: As the rolls close at 6.00 p.m. on Friday, 4 February the day after the announcement of the election, it was not possible to place any enrolment advertisements in the media. The result of that was that thousands of young voters throughout Australia were not able to get on the electoral roll. I think we will understand the then Government's reasons why those young voters did not get on the electoral roll if we look at a recent gallup poll in the Bulletin which showed that 63 per cent of voters between the ages of 18 and 24 intended to vote for the Australian Labor Party if an election had been held at the time the gallup poll was taken. I praise the Australian Electoral Office for the advertising that was arranged for each State to emphasise the casting of a formal vote for the Senate. Large newspaper advertisements using facsimiles of Senate ballot papers appeared in daily newspapers, supported by short radio announcements pointing to the appearance of these advertisements. In the section dealing with nominations the report goes on to say that 250 people contested the 64 Senate seats and that in New South Wales alone there were 62 candidates seeking election to the 10 Senate seats. We saw again the same old Tory tactics of trying to organise additional nominations to confuse the voters in New South Wales to try to get as many informal votes as possible to stop the Labor Party getting a majority in the Senate. The same tactics were used in 1974 and were successful. I am pleased to say that they were not successful this time. As a result of the electoral reforms that the Australian Labor Party will be bringing into this place shortly -people will be able to cast a formal vote much more easily for the Senate-this situation will not arise in the future. The report goes on to point out: A total of 24,493 postal votes were cast at overseas locations. The largest single issuing point was London, where 7,088 votes were taken. For the first time, Australian electors in Britain were able to vote outside London, the Australian Consulates in Edinburgh and Manchester being Postal Vote issuing points. I believe that in fact all Australian diplomatic posts should be available for voting on election day. It has been my experience that in fact officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs are not particularly helpful in trying to assist people in voting. It is not their fault. Constituents have come to me and have said that they have asked officers at some of our foreign posts about the Labor Party ticket, about the Liberal Party ticket and about how they cast a formal vote in the Senate for a particular party. When confronted with a ballot paper with 62 squares the officers have not even been able to tell them what are the first three places on the Labor Party ticket or the first three places on the Liberal Party ticket. Again, if the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform are adopted, as I am sure they will be, in future the names of the political parties will be on the ballot papers. It will in fact encourage people to cast a formal vote. In the section dealing with polling day, the report points out that 94.65 per cent of the enrolled electorate voted. That is a very good figure. The report also pointed out: Votes of persons who signed declarations because their name had been struck off the roll or omitted (Section Votes) numbered 15,545 . . . I put it to the Senate that in fact the true number would probably be more than 100,000 because I am sure all honourable senators are aware of the difficulty in getting people to fill out a declaration for a section vote. The average voter, when confronted with this situation, just does not bother to go through this procedure and claim his section vote. One of the things that arose out of the last election-complaints were made to me about this matter-was that apparently there had been an attempt to cleanse the rolls in some of the rural towns, particularly in New South Wales, in which universities of advanced education are situated. When the rolls are cleansed in these particular places it is very easy to get the students off the roll. A number of times during the year, of course, they are not there, they are back in the capital cities. After chasing up some of these queries it seems to me that in fact the same sort of cleansing procedures do not take place in relation to the rural properties. A lot of people have in fact left the rural properties. Younger people from rural properties happen to be away at university and live, for example, in Sydney. Their names may still appear on the electoral roll but, surprise, surprise, they still get a vote and still continue to vote in that particular rural electorate on voting day. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(5.38) —I wish to speak to the Australian Electoral Office annual report for 1982-83 to express concern that there might be a lack of security in the printing of trade union ballot papers for elections . At page 12 of the report under the heading 'Other Electoral Activities' reference is made to industrial elections. The report says: The Industrial Registrar referred 416 industrial elections to the Australian Electoral Office under the provisions of section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 during the year 1982/83. That was the year under review. Further in appendix D of the report reference was made to the number of elections referred to the Australian Electoral Office. The number of elections referred to the Australian Electoral Office was 356 in 1978-79, 417 in 1981-82, and 416 in 1982-83. So there is a steady increase in the number of elections that have been referred to the Electoral Office. Traditionally ballot papers in trade union elections have been printed in the various government printing offices, either the Australian Government Printing Office or the State government printing offices under tight security. In New South Wales, for example, there are secrecy provisions in the Crimes Act 1900, and there are Public Service regulations, particularly in section 159, which refer to secrecy. So there has been a tradition that the printing of ballot papers at the Government Printing Office is a matter on which there will be no controversy. They are very carefully checked and counter-checked so that all people can feel that the ballot is beyond reproach. In addition I have been informed that ballot papers can be printed within 24 hours and that they are done, as I have said, in the utmost secrecy. Today I received a telegram from the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, in which he stated: The New South Wales branch of the PKIU is presently having its annual ballots conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office and is receiving hundreds of complaints from its members in regard to the standard of the printed ballot paper and its lack of printer identification. Our inquiries have uncovered the horrifying evidence that the printer's ballot papers are produced from copy obtained from computer print out, forwarded to a leading computer manufacturer, Rank Xerox, who then print the ballot papers on government supplied paper. We object to this non-PKIU produced arrangement and question the matter of security of such arrangement. We request urgent review of these unsatisfactory practices. The union is particularly outraged at the insensitivity of the Electoral Office because the National Secretary of the PKIU had received an assurance from the Special Minister of State, Mr Beazley, on 15 August that the facilities of the Government printing offices would be used unless there were real problems in those printeries in meeting the deadlines required by the Electoral Office. The position is that the printers' union in New South Wales, using that as an example, asserts that the Government Printing Office is not working to full capacity, so that ballot papers could have been printed at the New South Wales Government Printing Office. This raises the important question, as far as the Electoral Office report is concerned, that ballot papers must not only be carefully accounted for but all things to do with trade union ballots must appear to be completely above board, and if ballot papers are to be produced in commercial printing houses there is a danger and at least there will be real concern that they will not be dealt with in the way in which they should be dealt with. So we cannot afford to have this looseness. The Electoral Office must look at the matter. I appreciate that in the past seven or eight years there has been a reduction in efficiency concerning ballots. That is something which must be addressed by a review of the Act; but it is a matter for another time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.34) — The report of the Australian Electoral Office mentions a range of items that come under its responsibility. For example , on page 5 it refers to the review of electoral legislation and to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform which submitted its report not so long ago. As a member of that Committee, I take this opportunity of commending the work of the Electoral Office in presenting material to the Committee. It was extremely efficient and effective and it contributed greatly to the Committee's ability to get its work done in the time available. However, I draw attention to a couple of other items. Page 11 refers to freedom of information. The interesting item that one can remember from the original debate on freedom of information was the absolute welter of requests that would be received once the Freedom of Information Act was passed. It is interesting to note that in the last year the Electoral Office has been subjected to an overwhelming number of requests-to the order of six; two on access to personal records, two on access to instructions and guidelines, and two on other matters. In looking at freedom of information, it is also very useful to look back on what has happened and to note that the sorts of alarmist views expressed at the time have not come to fruition, and that the electors are much more responsible in their attitude to information collecting and usage than many parliamentarians gave them credit for. An item on page 13 refers to electoral information, education and research. It is my hope that when the new Bill arrives-I understand that we shall be debating it shortly-the upgrading of this area will be a high priority. Within the limited resources the Electoral Office has had available to it, it has undertaken some very interesting and worthwhile projects. However, it has been severely limited in its educational role. The Electoral Office is well positioned and well suited to be the body which should involve itself in electoral information. The notion of political literacy is not one which is greatly lauded in this country. However, it is vital for democracy that political literacy be one of our aims. People such as ourselves in democracies tend to take it for granted that democracies exist by their own effort; they do not. In every year in the last five years, the number of democracies in the world has decreased. That is an alarming prospect for those of us who value democracy so highly. We ought not to take for granted the continuation of democracy in Australia without a continuing effort on our part to make sure that the population knows of its worth and its ideals and subscribes to those ideals. Surely there is no better place in which to spend some of our resources each year than in education in this vital area of political literacy and understanding. When we get the next report from the new organisation which will take the place of the Australian Electoral Office, I hope that we shall be able to read a much larger section on political education and that it will have undertaken a much wider range of activities because the Government will have been able to provide it with additional resources and will have widened its legislative brief. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(5.38) —I shall try to be brief, because I think that Senator Peter Baume also wishes to speak. I shall mention only two or three matters. First, Senator Childs raised the question of printing. It may be best for me to advise him that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform is looking at the industrial functions of the Australian Electoral Office and will be taking those matters on board and considering them. Secondly, I join with Senator Sibraa in congratulating the Electoral Office on its excellent 'Vote Formal' campaign at the last election. It had a considerable effect in Victoria. It was by far the most massive, interesting and well put campaign that I have seen. It reduced the informal vote by about 1 1/2 per cent. I also congratulate the Electoral Office on its magnificent coverage on election night. Its set-up at the National Tally Room in Canberra and the number of computers and computer outlets that it had was absolutely magnificent. Any person in that Tally Room could ask for any figure that he liked. The figures came through quickly, and the analyses and types of display that the Electoral Office could produce were enormously helpful. It is true that the Tally Room was , as always, behind the Liberal Party and Australian Labor Party in a results service, but this time the gap was narrower than I have ever seen it before. The only other thing that I would suggest to the Electoral Office is that at some stage it should provide a polling booth by polling booth results service, which would be easy to do with computers, so that one would know, as the parties do, where the swings were coming from. Finally, I join with Senator Macklin in thanking the Australian Electoral Office and its officials for the help it gave to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. No matter what figures we asked for, the details came and they came quickly. I was very impressed by the way the people were able to marshal that material and bring it forward. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.40) —I am grateful to Senator Ray for making these few minutes available to me. On behalf of the Opposition, I express our gratitude to the Australian Electoral Office for the way in which the last election was conducted. We did so at the declaration of the poll in many areas, but it is an appropriate time to mention it again. There are two matters I want to mention, one from the report and one from the remarks of Senator Sibraa. Our scrutineers informed me that informal votes, certainly for the Senate, were detrimental to the Liberal Party of Australia as much as to the Australian Labor Party. It is in fact a fiction to pretend that informal votes work always to the advantage of the Liberal Party. They simply do not and those who were watching the votes were at pains to point this out to us. It is in our interest, as much as anyone else's, to see that the number of informal votes decrease, but to see that done in a manner which is consistent with the best electoral practice. The real matter I want to raise is in the context of our gratitude to the Electoral Office and our congratulations for what it did. It concerns some complaints made to me by people who had difficulty in obtaining section votes. Reports came in from people who had found their names struck off or omitted and who wanted to fill in the declaration form and to claim the right to a section vote. On several occasions the officer in charge of the polling booth was unwilling to accommodate them in this respect. I imagine it may be a matter which would involve the Electoral Office reviewing the instructions given to those in charge of the polling places. I do not think what was happening was in accordance with proper procedure. A discretion was being exercised which could have been to the disadvantage of citizens wishing to cast a vote in the election . I hope that this information can be passed on to the Electoral Office. Perhaps its staff will read this Hansard report. If it takes some effort to make sure that the instructions given to the people in charge of each polling booth include the need to accommodate those who wish to cast a section vote, I believe that would help to overcome what were in fact the only complaints which I heard on polling day about the actual conduct of the election by the Electoral Office. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(5.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report by the Administrative Review Council Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.44) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Ministerial Statement Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(5.44) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Bill 1983, Radiocommunications Bill 1983, Radiocommunications (Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Bill 1983, Radiocommunications (Receiver Licence Tax) Bill 1983 , Radiocommunications Taxes Collection Bill 1983, Radiocommunications (Temporary Permit Tax) Bill 1983, Radiocommunications (Test Permit Tax) Bill 1983, Radiocommunications (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 and Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 12 dated 2 November 1983. Report on Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment I present the report on preservation measures for the Abbott's Booby on Christmas Island, together with the transcript of evidence . Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Jones —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I present the 207th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. This report is the finance minute on report 192, which was a discussion paper on the collection and dissemination of statistics. The finance minute is the formal mechanism through which the Government responds to the Committee's recommendations. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator WATSON —by leave-The Committee considers that timely and accurate statistics are an essential requirement for both public and private sector management. In particular, such information is required for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of policies and programs across the full range of governmental activities. Similarly comprehensive and up-to-date statistics are also required as a basis for advice on prospective new policies and programs. If comprehensive and relevant statistics are not available, then it is possible for Government policies and programs, formulated on the basis of incomplete information, to be directed away from the areas of greatest need. Even though the benefits that can flow from statistical information are great, so also are the costs of obtaining them. By any measure, the quantity of official statistics now collected is immense. Subject groups range over demography, education, health, welfare, national accounts, employment and prices, all industry groups, transportation and communications. The 1981-82 Budget appropriations for the Australian Bureau of Statistics total about $111m, of which $76m was for salaries of Bureau staff. Furthermore, the Confederation of Australian Industry claims that the cost of complying with Federal and State government regulations on the provision of statistical information was $3,700m in 1978-79. Consequently, the Committee considered that it was important to produce a discussion paper covering such issues. This resulted in the 192nd report which discussed a number of problem areas associated with the collection and dissemination of statistics by the Commonwealth Government, and made suggestions aimed at effecting improvements in the quality of those statistics. It also considered more economical ways of carrying out the task, which, in turn, could have the added advantage of freeing resources for the collection of needed, but as yet unavailable, information. The Committee's main recommendations were made in the following areas: The strengthening of the power of the ABS to co-ordinate statistical information; the establishment by the ABS of a central statistical register; the appropriate use of taxation data; that consistency be encouraged in standard data concepts, definitions and classifications; that the Census and Statistics Act be amended to allow for maximum utilisation of statistics; that overseas initiatives to reduce the paper burden imposed by governments on citizens be examined; the possibility of charging users for some statistical publications; and that an interdepartmental committee be established to advise governments on urgent matters relating to statistical programs and priorities. As indicated in this finance minute, several of the Committee's recommendations have been accepted and consequently the Committee is generally satisfied with this response. The main policy revisions effected as a result of the Committee's recommendations are as follows: Firstly, the introduction of new measures designed to strengthen the co-ordination role of the Australian Bureau of Statistics; secondly, the amendment of the Census and Statistics Act to allow maximum use of available data; and, thirdly, the introduction of charges for a much higher proportion of ABS publications. However, the Committee does have some reservations about this response to its 192nd report. In particular, the Committee considers that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should further explore the possibility of making better use of taxation data. The Committee will continue to pursue this area and several others which emerged from the 192nd report, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I commend this report to honourable senators. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Button) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a first time. Second Readings Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(5.52) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill 1983 The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the 'no work as directed-no pay' provisions in the Public Service Act and certain statutory authority legislation . These provisions were introduced by the former government in 1980 in respect of the Public Service and six Commonwealth authorities: The Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Australian Postal Commission, the Australian Telecommunications Commission, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Teaching Services and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Introduction of these provisions followed a period of industrial disputation over pay and conditions and a decision by the New South Wales Supreme Court in Bennett's case, which overturned the accepted view that under common law provisions, Commonwealth employing authorities were able to withhold pay from staff refusing to carry out the full range of their duties. The Supreme Court held that the common law rights of employers to implement the no work as directed-no-pay principle had no operation in the Commonwealth employment area because the Public Service Act and regulations established a detailed and exclusive code of employment between the Commonwealth Government and its employees. The Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Act 1980 empowered the Public Service Board and specified authorities to declare that staff who fail to comply with an authorised direction relating to the performance of their duties are not to be paid salary. Such declaration remains in force until the board or authority is satisfied that the employee has complied with its directions. No appeal mechanism was provided in the legislation against management decisions and the Act specifically prohibited the making of awards or determination by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Public Service Arbitrator which were inconsistent with the provisions of the legislation. The justification for such legislation was to give the Commonwealth rights which, according to the then Minister, applied generally to employers in the private sector. In reality, however, the legislation placed Commonwealth employers in a position different from private sector employers. The Common law rights of private employers to exercise no work as directed-no pay powers are not clear cut, particularly where employment is covered by an award of an industrial tribunal-for example in 1980-the same year as the decision in Bennett's case-the Full Bench of the Federal Court held in Gapes Case that this power was not available to a major banking company as it was not consistent with the award concerned. It is therefore clear that, in the private sector, the ability of employers to apply the no work as directed no pay principle is constrained by the terms of applicable awards. In essence, then, this legislation created a situation where the then Government provided itself with sanctions against its own employees which were not necessarily available to all the private sector and, in addition, it put itself in the position where its powers could not be overridden by a decision of an industrial tribunal. This legislation was only one of a number of instances in which the former Government singled out its own employees for overly harsh treatment in the industrial arena. Prior to the 1980 legislation the Government had passed the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act allowing for the stand-down, suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action. In 1979 the Government attempted to sanction unions involved in disputes by withdrawing facilities for the payroll deduction of union dues. The former Government also prohibited recourse to arbitration in respect of management decisions under the Commonwealth Employees (Redevelopment and Retirement) Act. This Government rejects such a confrontationist approach towards its own employees. The existence of legislation of this kind has acted against the development of improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. Rather than encouraging a sound working relationship, such punitive legislation has actually led to a marked deterioration in employer-employee relations. The statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions commits the Government to a number of measures to meet its objective of improved industrial relations. In particular, the ALP undertook in the accord to adopt, and encourage other employers to adopt, a less confrontationist approach to industrial relations. Among other things this involved the encouragement of dispute settlement through conciliation without recourse to legislative or common law sanctions. More specifically, the ALP undertook to take steps to bring about a better industrial relations environment in the public sector. This Bill is a first such step. In conjunction with the other Bills which I am introducing, the Government is now moving to repeal the confrontationist legislation enacted by the previous Government and to create a more rational industrial relations atmosphere in the public sector. Abolition of the legislative no work as directed-no pay provisions is consistent with the Government's objective that Australian Government employees should be treated in a manner consistent with employees in the private sector. These amendments do not mean that the Government does not have access to no work as directed-no pay if such action is necessary where unions institute bans and limitations. Rather we propose to remove the right of management to impose such action unilaterally. It is appropriate that Commonwealth employers who find it necessary to take staff off pay in dispute situations should have to seek authority to take such action within the context of an award or determination of the appropriate arbitral authority. This provides an opportunity for the views of all parties to be considered and is a far more acceptable process than the unilateral exercise by management of no work as directed-no pay provisions. It is highly desirable that exercise of such a power in an industrial dispute be sanctioned by an independent arbitral tribunal which has considered the full facts of the case. I propose to indicate to the ACTU, and public sector unions, that this action is being taken by the Government in the interests of developing more harmonious relations in the Commonwealth employment sector. Consequently the Government would expect Commonwealth Employees and their unions to reciprocate by seeking to resolve their claims or grievances through the established machinery, including access to the arbitral authorities. I commend the Bill to the senate. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Amendment Bill 1983 The purpose of this Bill is to restore the pre-1981 jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and other relevant arbitral bodies to make determinations and awards in relation to the redeployment or termination of employment of Commonwealth staff to whom the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act applies. Upon the election of the Fraser Government in 1975 the issues of redeployment and retrenchment of surplus staff increased in prominence. Previously existing guidelines for application to redundancy situations in Commonwealth employment generally were formalised by the making of Determination 509 of 1977 by the Public Service Abritrator. That determination applies to the greater part of Commonwealth employment and provides for advice to be provided to staff organisations where a redundancy situation is likely to occur, for appropriate notice periods to be given of impending redundancy, and of transfer or termination of employment. The determination also provides for income maintenance, depending on age and length of service of the employee involved. Further to these provisions, the former Government saw a need to extend the redeployment and retirement provisions of the Public Service Act and other Commonwealth legislation. Consequently the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill was introduced into parliament in 1979. It was proclaimed to come into effect in February 1981. The CE(RR) Act provides a framework for the redeployment and retirement of Commonwealth employees on the grounds of excess numbers, physical or mental incapacity, inefficiency or loss of essential qualifications. Apart from the compulsory retirement provisions the Act also provides for the voluntary retirement of staff from age 55 and imposes a maximum retirement age of 65. The Act applies to the Australian Public Service and is administered by the Public Service Board. Statutory authorities not staffed under the Public Service Act can come under the CE(RR) provisions on request. Staff organisations strongly opposed provisions of the legislation particularly those which they saw as giving the Government unprecedented rights to sack its employees. Following extensive industrial disputation, during which they were exhorted by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to take their case to arbitration, the staff organisations lodged an application with the Public Service Arbitrator. This application sought a determination providing for, among other things, procedures for consultation with staff organisations and minimum time to be observed before staff could be declared as eligible for redeployment. In December 1979, a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decided that a determination should be made which preserved the main features of Determination 509 of 1977. This decision had the effect of first, defining the nature of consultations with staff organisations before declarations were made under the Act; secondly, delaying by three months the declaration of staff for redeployment; thirdly, removing the scope for varying the times between the issue of notice and acting to transfer to a lower level or to terminate employment; and fourthly, giving preference in retention to staff organisations. A determination to reflect this decision as subsequently made by the Arbitrator- Determination No. 503 of 1980. The then Government considered that this Determination altered the intention of the parliament in passing the CE (RR) Act-notwithstanding that section 24 of the Act quite expressly provided for the arbitration tribunals to make determinations inconsistent with the Act. The Determination was disallowed in parliament on 11 March 1981 and on 14 April-even though the unions had been urged in the first place to take their grievances to arbitration-amendments were made to exclude redeployment and termination of employment matters from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is those amendments that we now propose to reverse. The restoration of the pre-1981 jurisdiction would be consistent with our objectives of improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. The matters which would be restored to the jurisdiction of the tribunals are entirely appropriate for determination by them. With the repeal, disputes over these issues will be capable of being fully dealt with by an independent industrial tribunal. The opportunity will, of course, be available for the Board and other relevant bodies to argue that the tribunal should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. Restoration of arbitral jurisdiction will not, however, complete the Government' s consideration of possible changes to the CE (RR) Act. As well as providing for redeployment and retirement action in the case of excess numbers and for physical or mental incapacity, the Act also provides for regulations to be made prescribing other reasons for redeployment and retirement. Following the consultations required by the Act a regulation was made in November 1982 prescribing inefficiency and loss of an essential qualification as reasons for redeployment and retirement. It is the Government's view that the retention of an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost essential qualifications is critical to the effective operation of the Service. However, the provisions contained in this regulation are extensive and go considerably further than previous such provisions. Staff organisations have been especially critical of this regulation. Consequently, a review will be held into those areas of the Act which deal with management-initiated early retirement. This review will be conducted by a working group comprising representatives of the Public Service Board, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the ACTU and the Council of Professional Associations. At the conclusion of the review, which I envisage being early 1984, I will receive a report from the working party concerning possible amendments to the Act. Pending this review, the Public Service Board had, at the Government's request, advised that it will not take action to implement the provisions of the regulation. I must stress, however, the Government's commitment to an effective, but fair, system for dealing with staff who are surplus, inefficient or incapacitated or who have lost an essential qualification. It is the Government' s intention that the review should be conducted in this light and should be directed at the best means of establishing such a system. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Repeal Bill 1983 This Bill deals with an important aspect of the Government's industrial relations platform in relation to Australian Government employees. It seeks the repeal of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977. The CE(EP ) Act was introduced in haste by the Fraser Government in 1977 but was not brought into operation until 1979 as a response to a dispute between Telecom Australia and the Australian Telecommunications Employees Assocation. Basically, the Act provides, subject to ministerial direction, for the direct suspension or dismissal of Commonwealth employees engaged in industrial action, or the direct standing down of Commonwealth Employees affected by the Industrial action, without reference by the employing authority to any industrial tribunal. The direct powers conferred on Commonwealth employing authorities by the CE(EP) Act are not only provocative but also unneccessary. It has always been open to these bodies to apply to the Public Service Arbitrator under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920 or to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 for the right to suspend or stand down employees engaging in, or affected by, industrial action. The Government believes this approach to be the best way for Commonwealth employing authorities to be empowered to stand down staff in dispute situations. An application to an industrial tribunal provides an opportunity for the views of all parties to be considered and is a far more acceptable process than the unilateral exercise by management of the CE(EP) Act provisions which provide no right of appeal nor avenue of redress other than under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, which effectively only allows a review on matters of law and not on the merits of the decision. The Government does not consider it appropriate that as an employer it should have statutory powers of the type found in the CE(EP) Act which are not available to employers in the private sector. The Government's belief is that in industrial disputes employers who wish to have the power to suspend or stand down employees engaging in or affected by industrial action should not object to making out a case before an independent tribunal. In this respect, honourable senators might note what the Committee on Freedom of Association of the International Labour Organisation had to say about the CE(EP) Act in its 187th report of November 1978. That Committee criticised the fact that the legislation could be invoked at the Government's discretion without the exhaustion of dispute settlement procedures, and expressed concern that there was no effective review of action taken against the employees. The Committee also stated that it was not convinced that legislation imposing punitive sanctions on public employees on account of their involvement in various forms of industrial action was either necessary or desirable. The Act has been used on nine occasions and on each occasion there was widespread opposition from Australian government employees. Clearly the existence of legislation of this type acts against improved employer and employee relationships. In this respect I might indicate to the Senate that there is still a large number of actions before the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act brought by Commonwealth employees challenging the validity of their suspensions under the CE(EP) Act during the Department of Social Security staffing dispute in 1981. These actions were based on claims of denial of natural justice. Negotiations between the Public Service Board and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association are still continuing on these actions. The rights of the individuals concerned will not be affected by the repeal of the CE(EP) Act. The National Labour Consultative Council has been consulted about the repeal of the CE(EP) Act and does not oppose that action. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator JONES(Queensland)(5.54) —Prior to presenting the tabling statement on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, I pay tribute to the staff of the Committee, the Secretary to the Committee and the research staff, for the way in which they maintained their services to the Committee and helped us to present this very worthwhile report. I also pay tribute to the former Deputy Chairman of the Committee, former Senator Tony Mulvihill, who had an extreme and very deep interest in the preservation of the Abbott's booby. I believe that Tony would have been very pleased to see the presentation of this report today. The Committee's inquiry into the preservation of the endangered Abbott's booby on Christmas Island arose out of its consideration of the annual report for 1980 -81 for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Under current arrangements, the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment each year receives 40 annual reports from Government departments and authorities , and statutory corporations. The question of how most appropriately to deal with this flood of information, in accordance with the resolution of the Senate enabling committees to inquire into annual reports, has posed difficulties since it became a regular practice of the Senate in 1976. This Committee, under my predecessor as Chairman, Senator Jessop, has been most diligent in attempting to meet the intentions of the Senate under the terms of the resolution on annual reports. The Committee reported on annual reports in March 1978, in June 1978, in March 1979, and in May 1982. The report I tabled today is the latest in this series. Over the period covered by this series, the Committee has attempted to develop a method of carrying out its duty of scrutinising annual reports in the most appropriate way. In earlier years, a common approach by standing committees was to examine briefly all the annual reports referred to them. These examinations tended to concentrate on the style, format and contents of the reports under review. Sometimes a summary of the problems raised by the reporting bodies was included. In its May 1982 report, the Committee criticised this approach as being shallow and superficial, and as not contributing substantially to the oversight by Parliament of the operations of the Executive. Limitations of time and staff impose severe constraints on the standing committees in attempting to use the review of annual reports as a means of overseeing the activities of the Executive. In the inquiry leading to its May 1982 report, the Committee tried to circumvent those constraints by selecting particular aspects of two of the 45 annual reports referred to it for examination that year. During that inquiry, the Department and authority concerned-the Department of Science and Environment, and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation-were invited to make written submissions on the five areas selected by the Committee for investigation. Representatives were then questioned at a public hearing. Subsequently, the Committee invited comment on some aspects of the evidence from interested persons and organisations. The approach adopted by the Committee on that occasion proved deficient in two respects. First, the examination of some issues was incomplete because the Committee heard evidence only from representatives of the department or authority whose annual report was under investigation. Second, the inquiry was delayed and some of the issues were out of date or overtaken by events. Following its May 1982 report, the Committee resolved that it would continue the approach of limiting its detailed examination of annual reports to particular matters mentioned in a small number of selected reports. It was hoped that the Committee would be able to complete its inquiries into matters arising from its scrutiny of annual reports within a period of four months. Experience in the case of the Abbott's booby inquiry has proven this to have been an unrealistic aspiration. The annual report for 1980-81 for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was tabled in the Senate on 15 October 1981 and referred to the Committee on 20 October 1981. A resolution of the Committee of 19 May 1982 authorised the Chairman to consider the annual reports which had been referred to the Committee, with a view to selecting particular matters arising from them for inquiry. The Chairman recommended investigation of current plans for the preservation of the Abbott's booby on Christmas Island, and this was agreed to at a meeting of the Committee on 23 September 1982. Submissions were invited from interested organisations and individuals, and public hearings were arranged for 9 and 16 November 1982. Fifteen witnesses were heard during those two days, and 346 pages of evidence taken. A field visit to Christmas Island was arranged for early February 1983, but was cancelled by the dissolution of Parliament. Following the convening of the present Parliament and the reconstitution of the Committee, I announced to the Senate on 19 May 1983 the resumption of the inquiry. The Committee visited Christmas Island and, on the way there, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, from 8 to 12 July last, and undertook an extensive inspection of the phosphate mining operations there and their effect on the natural environment of the island, with particular attention to the Abbott's booby. We also had discussions with representatives of the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas island, the Union of Christmas Island Workers, the Administration of Chrismas Island, and local community organisations, which covered a wide range of matters relating to the island's economic and social welfare. I table the report on the preservation of the Abbott's booby today, a year after the Committee decided to take up the matter for investigation and two years after the annual report from which the inquiry arose was tabled in the Senate. We have exceeded the aim we set ourselves in our May 1982 report, of reporting on the selected annual report within four months of its tabling in the Senate, by a considerable margin. I feel no need to make any apology for this. The general election and change of government earlier this years probably added three months to the period of the inquiry. Before and after the general election , the Committee conducted its inquiry expeditiously and without unnecessary delays. My main point is that the worthwhile conduct of an inquiry will occupy a certain, virtually irreducible, period of time-generally a minimum of about six months. In view of this, I feel it is advisable that matters chosen from annual reports for further investigation should, in most cases, be of relatively long term interest. The inquiry we have conducted into the preservation of the Abbott's booby on Christmas Island did cover a matter of long term interest. The question of the Abbott's booby is very closely tied to consideration of the future economic and social welfare of Christmas Island. Christmas Island is now at a most interesting stage in its history. The island has reliably supplied Australia and New Zealand with phosphate for all of this century. The importance of Christmas Island phosphate to Australian agriculture led to acquisition of the island from Great Britain in 1958. The time has now come when the end of phosphate mining as the sole industry on the island can be envisaged. The Government recognised this when it commissioned Mr W. W. Sweetland to inquire into the long term future of Christmas Island in 1981. Mr Sweetland presented his report to the Government in February 1982, and the Committee looks forward to seeing the Government's response to that report. Phosphate mining has had an adverse effect on the Abbott's booby by causing the destruction of large areas of the forest in which it nests. The bird was once more widely distributed throughout the tropical islands of the Indian Ocean. When those islands were settled, with the exception of Christmas Island, their forests were destroyed and the bird became extinct. Human settlement began on Christmas Island only in 1888, and up to now has had less effect on that island than on the other tropical islands of the Indian Ocean. Christmas Island still preserves, over much of its area, the natural environment which existed before human settlement began. The Abbott's booby is one of the most distinctive of the animal species inhabiting the Christmas Island forest. The forest also contains other interesting animal species-for example, the fourteen different kinds of land crab. The red land crab can be seen in great numbers after rain falls on the island. A survey in 1978 by the Western Australian Museum discovered 16 new species of fish inhabiting the Christmas Island coral reef. The island forms a unique ecosystem, which is of great value for scientific research into population dynamics, genetics and evolution. There has tended to be a conflict in the past between the need to conserve the island's forest and the need to recover phosphate. The Committee found that the plans and procedures for future phosphate mining agreed between the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, in March 1982 and May 1983, provided a satisfactory framework within which recovery of most of the remaining phosphate deposits could proceed in a profitable way, without having an unduly detrimental effect on the viability of the Abbott's booby population. The satisfactory way in which the new procedures are operating was illustrated by the answer which my colleague, Senator Townley, received to a question which he put during the sitting of Estimates Committee F on 15 September last. The answer made it clear that when the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island wanted earlier this year to clear forest in field 25, it had to provide a satisfactory justification to the Government Conservator, who is an officer of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. It was only after this requirement had been complied with that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) agreed to clearing going ahead in preparation for mining. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Jones —Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The clearing will proceed in accordance with an agreement reached on 21 May 1983, which is described in the Committee's report. The Committee was concerned that there has been no appreciable re-afforestation of the total area cleared since mining operations first began. There is doubt over the legal liability of the Phosphate Mining Company on Christmas Island Ltd for re-afforestation of areas cleared before it was formed in June 1981 to succeed the British Phosphate Commission. Another obstacle to re-afforestation has been the possibility of recovering the large amount of high-grade phosphate left in the ground by the current method of mining by 'clam-shall' excavator. A method of recovering this phosphate using a pneumatic suction machine is currently being tested. It is important that large- scale re-afforestation commence soon, and this is something which the Union of Christmas Island Workers supports. Both the Union of Christmas Island Workers and the management of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island Ltd have a very positive attitude towards nature conservation. In particular the work of the company's Conservation Officer, Mr David Powell, MBE, deserves commendation. It cannot be denied that the phosphate mining industry on Christmas Island is currently going through a difficult period from the point of view of profitability. Given effective management and the co-operation of the workforce, it can survive this period to continue for another decade to provide a significant proportion of the phosphate requirements of Australia and New Zealand. Alternative industries to phosphate mining must be developed if Christmas Island is to be able to continue to support a healthy community. The Committee has made some suggestions in this regard. The value of the Christmas Island forest and its unique animal and plant species could be quite significant for the economic future of the Island. The 1972 UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage, to which Australia is signatory, states that each State which is party to the Convention should take all possible steps to ensure the transmission of the natural heritage situated in its territory to future generations. Christmas Island is the only example of a South East Asian type of ecosystem over which Australia exercises territorial jurisdiction. Australia has a clear obligation to preserve the Abbott's booby, under the terms of the 1974 Australia/Japan Agreement for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment. This obligation is implemented through the Territory of Christmas Island Migratory Birds Ordinance 1980, which lists the Abbott's booby in Schedule 2 as 'a bird of a species in danger of extinction.' Mr President, I commend the Committee's report to the Senate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.05) —I wish to speak briefly to this report as one of the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. It could be asked why a Senate committee should devote its time to the welfare and future continuance in this world of a breed of seabird. I can only say that the fate of the Abbott's booby bird has been a source of concern to people around the world and I am glad the Committee has investigated the issue and concluded that for the present this species is likely to survive and that earlier fears for it are now mitigated. The total disappearance of a life form from the planet ought to be a source of concern to all its human inhabitants, and I think that, increasingly, thoughtful human beings share that view. Behind this issue of the Abbott's booby, and at the same time closely involved with the bird's future, as the Chairman of the Committee has just said, is the overall future of Christmas Island itself. In other words, if the Abbott's booby is to survive in the unique circumstances necessary for its survival, its environment must be preserved and, in my view, this will happen only if Christmas Island itself, which is an Australian territory recently acquired, maintains a viable and prosperous future. Certainly I believe that there should be an extension of the present national park on the island, at least to the extend of the recommendations made by the Committee. As Senator Jones said, the island has depended on phosphate mining for its income for a long time. Indeed, before phosphate mining it was not inhabitated at all and the Abbott's booby and other species there were undisturbed for many centuries. That is one of the reasons the island preserves now such a remarkably interesting environment. How it will survive after phosphate mining is no longer viable, as seems only too likely the next few years, is a matter for consideration. How can its population , largely made up of Chinese and Malay people, be sustained? Should they be repatriated to their homes in Malaysia or Singapore, or to Australia? Should other industries be established there and, if so, what industries? These things will have an important bearing on the future ecology of the island and I think ecological considerations like the ones which the Committee considered there must have a bearing on any future decision made by the Australian Government on behalf of the islanders. We have acquired a considerable responsibility with this remote island well out into the Indian Ocean. Is its future and that of the Abbott's booby best served by it continuing to be an Australian territory? That is a point that has to be raised because a line of arguments that ought to be taken into account says that this place might at some time become the Australian equivalent of the Falkland Islands-a defence obligation which could become dangerous. Fortunately, for a number of reasons Christmas Island is not considered to be in a critically important defence zone. I believe that for many reasons, including that one but also because of its environment, we should not try to make it a defence base in any sense at all. One reason is that unless it were massively armed, at enormous cost, it would not be possible to defend it. In other words, if we put in a bigger airfield and a reasonable amount of defence material these probably would be quite readily captured and used against us by a determined adversary. Such are the facts of the island's geography. We should get our thoughts clear on that issue and try not to see Christmas Island as a future defence base for Australia. What should be done with it? Certainly the curious feudal system now prevailing there must be changed. It must be totally obnoxious to all Australians that here is a piece of Australian territory which nobody can visit except on sufferance from the monopoly company which controls the island-that is, the phosphate interest. It is high time some changes were made to make Christmas Island more like the rest of Australia and more capable of looking after its own affairs, including the future of the Abbott's booby. People should have the right to own or lease land, which is not possible now, to set up independent businesses and control their own affairs through a duly elected public authority-in other words , a local council. On the other hand, residents of the island should pay for services such as water and electricity which are now paid for by the phosphate enterprise. A number of possibilities exist for Christmas Island. It is argued that its remoteness from Australia would make a major tourist industry there difficult but I do believe, having seen the place, that there is scope for some such industry because of the great natural beauty of the island and its diverse and quite remarkable life forms. I think it has potential as a visiting place for cruise ships and persons returning to Western Australia from South East Asia. This is one area that could be looked at in the general light of the future of the Abbott's booby and its habitat. The island could also be used for a variety of marine research including, because of the great depth of sea around it, the ocean thermal effect method of generating electric power which could be tested on a small scale and used to provide power for the island. Fisheries research in the region on which a fishing industry could be bases would be useful. After all , if we can import fish profitably from Europe and Japan to this country we should certainly be able to do so from Christmas Island. Basically, I think the moral and lesson of all of this is that there has been an opportunity, because a number of honourable senators have visited the island and can make these points known, for the Government to see that Australia has an obligation to this place. A careful study should now be made of the most viable practical future which Christmas Island can have so that we appear to the world, and this is important, to be fully responsive to the interests not only of Abbott's booby but also the other life forms, including human, of a very diverse and beautiful environment. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.11) —I support the report that has been presented by Senator Jones, the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment. I think this represents another example of how useful committee work can be if occasionally we select an annual report of a department, statutory authority or another area of interest to a particular committee and subject not only the officers of the department to scrutiny and public hearings but also invite submissions relating to the report from the general public. I think that in that way we can elicit quite a lot of useful information from these reports. Unfortunately, in the past reports have been accepted without any real scrutiny by the Parliament. The departments go through the motions of presenting some detail of their annual activities but very infrequently do we find that departments project into the future some of their intentions and objectives within departmental activities. I believe the Committee has presented a very useful document dealing with the Abbott's booby bird, or Sula abbotti, which is the ornithological name. The bird is very interesting. Chapter 1 of the Committee's report states: Sula abbotti, judging from its physical features and feeding habits, is a long- distance flier, ranging many hundreds of miles from its only home, Christmas Island. One of the species of fauna endemic to the Island, it always returns to the same forested area, preferably to the same nesting site, to breed. It requires a long breeding time to produce surviving offspring. Whereas some other boobies produce four chicks, the Abbott's Booby produces at best one chick every two years. It therefore has a low reproduction rate. Its population is hard to replenish if decimated by a catastrophe. There appears to be no pressure on the species arising from lack of food, as the seas within range have pentiful supplies of fish and squid. Current research indicates that, in order to maintain its numbers, the bird is long-lived: on average, one pair requires 26 years to replace itself by producing two breeding offspring. Egglaying occurs between April and August and breeding and caring for young occupies about 15 months . . . Therefore it is possible for the bird to have only one breeding cycle in two successive years. It produces a larger and heavier egg than any other species in the Sulid genus. The chicks grow remarkably slowly and take 20 weeks or more . . . to reach a fledging stage. The young are then dependent on their parents for food for at least another 30-40 weeks . . . After achieving independence a further four to five years is required to reach maturity. It is no wonder that the bird can be endangered. Some of the clearing that has occurred as a result of phosphate mining on Christmas Island has somewhat restricted the habitat and the breeding areas of the bird. If honourable senators read this document carefully they will find that it is most interesting . It also mentions other endangered species. There are several of them which are of great interest. They are illustrated on page 29 of the report. The report mentions birds such as the Christmas Island Frigatebird and the Golden Bosunbird , which are very beautiful birds. Many people in Australia and throughout the world happen to be very interested in the survival of these endangered species. I was glad to note that Senator Jones mentioned the former Deputy Chairman of the Committee, former Senator Tony Mulvihill. He was very interested in bird and animal life. As a matter of fact, I wonder whether we could name some sort of species after Tony Mulvihill as a tribute to the work that he has done on the Committee. We will have to talk to the museums of Australia to find out whether that is a possibility. I think he would be very thrilled if a possum, a bird or something like that could be named after him. Senator Peter Baume —A wombat. Senator JESSOP —Senator Baume mentioned a wombat. Strangely enough, he does not know how close to the bone he happens to be, because former Senator Mulvihill is a member of the organisation in South Australia which is seeking to protect the hairy-nosed wombat. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill would be pleased if we could do something like that for him. I mention also Mr Peter Roberts who was a former Secretary of the Committee. He organised the original visit which was, as the Chairman said, aborted by the untimely election which changed the course of events. Peter Roberts did a lot of preparatory work. He is an amateur ornithologist and bird watcher. I am sure he would have enjoyed the opportunity to see at first hand the habitat of this most interesting bird. I think it would be appropriate also to acknowledge the co- operation that we received from the Phosphate Mining Co. of Christmas Island Ltd . The company went out of its way to provide us with transport. It provided hospitality for us on that occasion. I mention also the Union of Christmas Island Workers whose members were very kind. The Secretary organised a function for us so that we could talk informally to the people who worked there. We found that was a very useful exercise to undertake. I think we ought to pay a tribute to everyone who assisted the Committee on that occasion, including the Administrator, Bill Yates, who looked after the Chairman and me on that occasion at his home. I wish to put that on record. I believe the report does stick fairly closely to the purpose for which the Committee went to Christmas Island. The Committee was concerned that some areas may be looked at by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission with respect to further mining operations. I think Senator Mason mentioned that we would like to think that the Government and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service will look at the question of extending the national park area so that no further encroachment is made on the habitat of this bird. The company is very concerned about it also. The evidence that I gathered from talking to the officers of the company indicated that they were co-operating to the best of their ability. The Committee said there was no problem with respect to continuing operations of the mine providing regard was paid to the matters that we, I thought effectively, drew their attention to. The Committee was anxious to examine the Government's response to the report of the Sweetland Commission of Inquiry into the Long Term Future of Christmas Island. The Sweetland report went further than our terms of reference enabled us to do. Senator Mason referred to future development in the area and foreshadowed his concern about that. I do not think that at this stage the Committee is in a position to make any positive recommendations about that because it did range a bit outside the terms of reference. However, as the Chairman said, we were anxious to examine the Government's response to the Sweetland report. I think the report does indicate a number of industries that could perhaps follow once the mining operations on the island cease. I commend the report to the Senate. I thank Mr Robert King and the rest of the staff for the work they have done in order that we could present this document to the Senate today. I support the Chairman's remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. (Quorum formed) Consideration resumed. The Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.02) —The last time this Committee met-it seems, I must say, an interminable time ago-the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, asked me whether the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations engaged in regular forecasting of unemployment on a month to month basis for the year ahead. He asked a number of other questions, I think in pursuit of trying to obtain a picture of the method of forecasting and assessment of various government departments. However, particularly the question was directed in my case at the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator Grimes has made some general comments which I think may have had relevance to the Leader of the Opposition's comments. The Treasury is the department which carries the responsibility of macro- economic policy advice. It is the department which sets the figures on which the Budget is based. In doing that, it has some input from other departments. But I think, if I might be not regarded as unkind, it is a fairly desultory process. However, throughout the year there are consultations and continuing contacts between the Treasury and other departments for the general purpose of informing the Budget program. I am advised that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations does not prepare forecasts of unemployment rates and the number of unemployed or benefit recipients on a month by month basis. It is considered that the uncertainties would be too great to allow any confidence in using such specific forecasts for the purpose of labour market analysis. The Government's view of the labour market was set out, in terms of the best available estimates, clearly in the Budget statements. The recent increase in employment is, of course, encouraging to the Government and the Opposition, as Senator Chaney put it, and is consistent with the view taken at Budget time. I must say that the Government is not unduly sanguine as a result of those recent figures and Senator Chaney himself drew attention to the fairly wild fluctuations in the figures that have occurred in the last couple of months. I remind the Committee that on both occasions in respect of both months the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has been very cautious in attributing any particular pattern to the figures which have emerged in the course of the last two months. So far as unemployment is concerned, the Budget was based on the expectation that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would edge upwards. It would particularly edge upwards, I suppose, in the context of the school leaver problem which emerges every year. All I am able to add to that is that the evidence since the Budget was brought down seems to support the general outlook and pattern which was predicated in the Budget assumptions. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.04) —I am sorry to intervene in front of Senator Baume who is seeking the call. However, to continue on this point, I thank the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) for the advice he has offered on behalf of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister in a position to tell me whether the Department had any concern about the figure of 680,000 which was given as the average monthly figure for unemployment benefit recipients? I think I understand what he means when he says it is a rather desultory process. However, there is some interdepartmental consultation and a chance, of course, for ministerial input during the Budget process to the assessments which are made on which the figures are ultimately based. There is not always a unanimity of view between departments. I do not suggest that that is because any department is at fault but because, as the Leader of the Government has said, there are many variables in this area. Even a change of seasonal conditions, which is utterly unforecastable, may have a very significant effect on the figures which are produced. So, in raising this matter I am not seeking really to establish that somebody has made an error. Rather, I want to get some sense of whether there was a variation of view among those departments which would have some expertise in the matter. I might forecast that I and perhaps other honourable senators will be raising this matter when we subsequently deal with the Department of Social Security and the Treasury in groups B and C. I think that Senator Messner has an interest in social security. I will be raising similar questions in regard to the figures on which the 680,000 Budget estimate was based. However, at this stage, given the role of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations as outlined by the Leader of the Government, all I seek is some indication of whether there was in fact a variety of views with respect to that figure or whether the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations thought on the basis of its own estimate of a gradual rise in unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis that the figure of 680,000 was as good as it thought we were likely to get. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.08) —No formal forecasts were given for the year or for the months of the year by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I am also advised that there was no variation of view. I am not advised whether the summation that Senator Chaney gave in his last sentence is, in those circumstances, the correct interpretation. However, I think it is; I think it is right. On my understanding , Treasury has the prime responsibility in this matter. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has no disagreement with Treasury's estimates in terms of the averaging over the year. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.09) —Senator Grimes earlier answered some questions put, I think, by Senator Chaney. I would be grateful if he could clarify some of the things he said or try to relate them back to some other figures which have been published in the 'Round-up of Economic Statistics' for October. I think Senator Grimes advised the Committee that there had been an increase in employment and that unemployment figures had been dropping. I think that was what he said. He mentioned a figure of 601,000. I thought he said the number had been dropping. I ask: Can the Minister help us relate those figures to the labour market statistics issued by the Department of the Treasury for October which seem to show that, certainly, the labour force has increased and that the 60.8 per cent participation rate is probably the greatest it has been? It is exceeded only by the figure for the December 1982 quarter. It is certainly greater than it has been for some months. In fact, the number of employed persons in September was one per cent less than it had been the year before. The publication makes the point that although there had been a strong growth in the labour force and a growth in the number of people employed, total unemployment had risen in September by 17,000. It gave a figure of 730,400 for the number of unemployed. I want to be quite clear. Is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure of 730,400 just published by the Government, for the number of unemployed in September? Can I also ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) whether the Government accepts the figure of 10.1 per cent unemployment which is given in the 'Round-up of Economic Statistics'. The figures show that 27.5 per cent of teenagers in the labour force are unemployed. The figures also show, if one looks at them industry by industry, that over the last year there have been some fairly catastrophic drops. I would like some indication, if I can get it, of what we can look forward to in certain sectors of the work force. The growth that has occurred appears to have been concentrated in the public sector and in related areas such as community services and communications. I am pleased that that is so. If honourable senators look at the figures and some of the losses that have occurred, the number of employed persons in various industries has dropped really quite disastrously. For example, in the construction industry there has been a drop of 76 per cent. There has been a drop of 40 per cent in the manufacturing industries. In the manufacturing industries overall there has been a drop of 59 per cent in employment in the 12 months from August to August. The drop in employment in the metal products industry has been 19.6 per cent and so on. Senator Cook —Isn't it shocking what you did? Senator PETER BAUME —Actually, I am interested in what the trend has been in the last few months because what those figures do not tell us is what has been happening the last few months. The aggregate figures show that the unemployment figure has not been improving and has been worsening. I would like the Minister to attempt to reconcile the two sets of figures about which Senator Chaney and I have been talking. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.14) —I quite deliberately made the point when I intervened in the previous debate that we have several sets of figures. The first set of figures and the set to which I referred related to the number of people receiving unemployment benefit. That is an absolute figure. We count the numbers. It is not an estimate, it is not a survey; it is an absolute figure. The simple fact is that the number of people receiving unemployment benefits has dropped to-I do not have the figures in front of me because I am getting them for the next set of estimates-I think 601, 400 or 604,100 or about that level. I am talking about the number of people receiving unemployment benefit. I made the point at the time that quite clearly that figure was different from the figures which result from Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys which are about the number of people in the work force and the number of people seeking employment. I think we have to remember that, in unemployment surveys by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, anyone who works for more than an hour a week is considered not to be unemployed. That figure is quite different from the number of people who are on unemployment benefit. The unemployment benefit figure also excludes those wives of people who are employed and who would be in the work force normally. I made the point that, whereas last year the number of people on unemployment benefit rose dramatically from 325,000 in May to 540,000 by the end of the year, this year the number of people actually receiving benefit actually levelled out and then dropped. How any of us reconcile those figures is a matter for discussion. Whether it means that in this case a number of people are, for all sorts of reasons-perhaps they have more confidence in the economy-now registering for unemployment benefit and putting themselves forward as being available for work and therefore the number of people on the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures rises artificially, I do not know. It is for that reason that I have not, in this place or outside this place, claimed that, because there is a drop in the number of uemployment beneficiaries, there is a dramatic improvement in the economy. I am saying that at least it is a hopeful sign that we have gone back to the trend of previous years, with the exception of last year, when the number of beneficiaries dropped over the months of July, August, September and October. I am also well aware of the fact that come the end of the year there will be a large number of school leavers on the market and the figure will go up again. I make the point that they will have to go up fairly considerably to reach the average level of 680,000 that Senator Chaney quite correctly mentioned is in the Budget figures. Those are Treasury estimates. Treasury, undoubtedly, makes those estimates with regard to economic forecasts and with regard to information from other departments. The Department of Social Security receives the applications and pays the money. It is not in the business of economic forecasting, nor has it ever pretended to be. The point I was making was that last year the figures were patently wrong on Budget night. No one in the Opposition suggested this time that the figures were patently wrong on Budget night. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.17) —I want to ascertain the amount that has been earmarked in the vote for the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations for the review of the Australian industrial relations system which was established by this Government. I received a response from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) to a question that I asked on 14 September relating to the decision of the High Court of Australia. The implications of the decision will also be of direct interest to the Committee of Review of Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems that has been established by this Government. To situate this matter properly, let me refer to the question I asked Senator Button on 14 September. I said: The Minister will have noted the broad interpretation of section 51 (xx) of the Constitution by Justices Murphy, Mason and Deane in the Tasmanian dam case. I ask whether the attention of the Minister has been drawn to these comments made by Mr Justice Murphy in Canberra on 5 September 1983 in a seminar on 'Changing Industrial Laws': The future course of federal industrial law will, I think, show a much greater reliance on the corporations and commerce powers than hitherto. Is this the view of the Government and, if so, how would award workers be protected from interference by this or future parliaments in matters concerning their wages and working conditions? My attention has been drawn to an article which actually predated my question of 14 September and the articles in the Australian of 6 September by Paul Ellercamp . In referring to a statement made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, Paul Ellercamp quoted Mr Willis as saying that he had ordered his Department to examine them-that is to say, the Tasmanian dams case and the community youth support scheme case-to see how the Government powers could be expanded. Frankly, I am at a loss to know, and I have not been told, what the Government's attitude is to Mr Justice Murphy's statement. Mr Justice Murphy is entering into political debate more and more. It is something that he has to be challenged about, and I am challenging him about it. The only way in which I can do that is through the Government, because if what he says is correct-that is to say, if the future course of Federal industrial law shows much greater reliance on the corporations and commerce power than hitherto-that will be detrimental to the workers of Australia. I note that the Minister, Mr Willis, in his statement as reported by Paul Ellercamp emphasised the importance as he saw it of the other decision, that is to say the CYSS decision, with respect to its implications for the broadening of the powers that were considered to be available under section 51 (xxxv) of the Constitution. Is there a separate inquiry in the Department into these particular cases? If so, when will the results of that inquiry be tabled in the Parliament or reported by the Minister? How is the committee reviewing Australian industrial relations law and systems going to deal with this issue in the absence of any submission or information supplied by the Minister? In short, I would like to know what the Minister's views are in relation to Mr Justice Murphy's comments? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.23) —Mr Chairman, I do not wish to be accused of immodesty but, with respect, one needs a far less brilliant mind than mine to understand that question, as Sir Max Beerbohm once said. It is a very complex issue, as Senator Harradine points out. First, let me say that Mr Justice Murphy, as I understand it, was speaking at an industrial relations seminar at which he expressed a particular view about the application of the corporations and commerce powers following the two decisions to which Senator Harradine referred. I take it that it is implicit in Senator Harradine's question that he challenges the right of Mr Justice Murphy to make such comments . I could simply avoid the question, I suppose, by saying that I do not propose to give a legal opinion about Mr Justice Murphy's view expressed at the seminar. But I think it is implicit in the honourable senator's question that in some way the Government should persuade Mr Justice Murphy, if that is not too gentle a word, that he should not make such comments. I do not know whether that is the honourable senator's view. I am then asked how the comment of Mr Justice Murphy will benefit those workers who are paid under various industrial awards. I am not able to express an opinion on that and I do not believe the Government has one. But the fact of the matter is that, as the honourable senator indicated, Mr Willis, the Minister, asked his Department to refer the implications of the two cases to the inquiry by the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. That inquiry, as far as the Government is concerned, is an independent one and it will report to the Government in due course. When it does so, the Government will presumably act or fail to act on the recommendations of that report. At that stage I suppose, if the inquiry has anything to say about the application of the corporations and commerce powers to the industrial relations power, that matter will be an issue for public discussion. Senator Harradine —Will that report be tabled? Senator BUTTON —I believe it will. That is the Government's intention, as I understand it. I believe it will be a public document. What I am really saying is that I cannot answer the question now but I am explaining why. I think the question the honourable senator is seeking to raise will be in the arena of public debate when that Committee publishes its report. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.25) —Does the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agree with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his comments about the impact of wage on-costs and the importance of conducting a form of review of the impact and the seriousness of those wage on-costs? I have no disagreement whatsoever with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to his comments about the seriousness. A recently published Australian Industries Development Association survey shows that there has been a growth from 39.4 to 43.9 per cent in the past year-a significant growth. There are a number of problem areas which perhaps the Minister would like to comment about. For instance, will something be done by this Government to endeavour to get one of the very significant areas of labour on-costs, that is State payroll tax, removed by negotiation with the State Premiers for some substitute provision by the Commonwealth to enable the payroll tax handed over to the States in the early 1970s now to come back to the Commonwealth and be removed as a start to reducing this tax on employment? I think everyone agrees that there is a problem , first, that it constitutes a tax on employment and, secondly, that the States need some substitute form of revenue, or at least claim that they do, if they are to remove it, because it is one of the significant parts of the tax base available to the State governments. There are some further matters to which I would like to make reference a little later, but I just ask those two questions of the Minister at this stage? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.28) —I am asked whether the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agrees with me in respect of what I am supposed to have said. I would like to establish right at the beginning what I did say in relation to this matter. I have not got the reference in front of me but I am quite happy to supply it to Senator Rae if he wants it. It was in a speech to the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia on Monday of last week. Senator Peter Rae —I have seen the speech but I presume there was some add-on to warrant the reporting it was given. Senator BUTTON —Just let me answer the question and see how we go from there. The point that I made was that a number of factors relating to industry competitiveness in Australia had to be considered. I made the point that add-on costs were in Australia. I mentioned long service leave as an example as something which we have in Australia but which does not exist in other countries . I said that on-costs in Australia are estimated to be roughly 45 per cent. I then made the point that if our add-on costs were at a level of 45 per cent they would be broadly consistent with the average for the Organisation of Economic Co -operation and Development countries for on-costs and that in the discussions about this issue it was not sufficient for Australian industry to rely on that figure when one looked at the comparative figures overseas. I then said that these were matters which, in my view, had to be addressed. By way of background I might say that I discussed this figure with a German industrialist, a very large employer in Germany, only six or seven weeks ago. I said that the add-on wage costs in Australia were fairly high. He made the point that in Germany they were in the order of 70 per cent. In Germany, companies pay the social security benefits as well as everything else. That is the contribution in Germany. Senator Peter Rae —Company tax is a bit different, though, is it not? Senator BUTTON —All sorts of things are different-inflation is different, company tax is different-and the figures are very difficult to compare. I have certainly had a discussion with the Minister about what I said. I have also said other things, but they are broadly consistent with that view that I have just put to the chamber. I gave the Minister a statement of what I said. I suppose the best way to find out whether he agrees with what I said is for someone in the House of Representatives to ask him. I am not trying to avoid the question by saying that. But he clearly understands what I am talking about and I think we are in susbtantial agreement on that issue. The honourable senator asking the question then went on to talk about payroll tax as one example of on-wage costs which is said to be detrimental to employment-it certainly is a tax on employment-and what could be done about that in terms of the Commonwealth and State governments. These questions, of course, can be asked in a broad variety of context-'Why does not the Government do this? Why does not the Government do that'. I am not trying to detract from the importance of the question. I would just say that governments often do not do these things as the previous Government did not do them over seven years and the one before that over three years and the one before that over 27 years because they have other priorities which seem at the time to be more important in terms of the Budget allocations. Nonetheless, I think it is an important question which we, as a government, have to look at in conjunction with the State governments, just as we have to look at the enormous increase in workers compensation premiums which is probably the most significant portion of the increase in one-wage costs in the last few years. There has been an enormous escalation in workers compensation premiums. Perhaps in 1975, if we had gone a little further, and I am not speaking in a partisan sense, with the development of a national compensation scheme, we might have made a contribution towards containing some of those costs. The question of how the principles of that scheme can be re-addressed is one which is occupying government attention at the moment and, indeed, was before the election. I understand that the honourable senator has more questions that he wants to ask. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.33) —The question that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, has referred to in relation to workers compensation insurance relates to industry and employment. It seems to me to be of very serious consequence, something which the Minister has just acknowledged. I quote from the Australian Industries Development Association survey Bulletin No. 353 of August 1983. In relation to workers compensation insurance it states: Over 1982 and in the years since 1974, workers insurance costs have been the fastest growing components of labour costs. In 1974, workers compensation costs contributed some 4 cents per hour to total labour costs. Six years later, this had grown ten fold to 40 cents per hour. Far from slowing, in 1982, the rate of growth in workers compensation costs rose by a massive 45 per cent. I acknowledge that the Minister did say that it had been a significantly growing component. The employment aspect to which I wish to refer is this: Are there indications, coming particularly from manufacturing industry, that we are creating in Australia a group of employment untouchables, comprising people who have either made a workers compensation claim and, if they are honest when they are applying for a job, are rejected, because they have a claims record? Alternatively, I refer to the other component of the employment untouchables, the people who fail the medical tests which seem to be becoming a far more signifcant part of any test that is given to people before they are taken on for employment. This medical test is done in preference to a skills test because, again, employers are concerned about what is happening with regard to workers compensation. In the light of the Minister's own view and in the Minister's knowledge are there any plans in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations or elsewhere within the Government, for a review of some sort to see what can be done in relation to the adverse impact on employment which workers compensation appears to be constituting, to the stage where many employers claim to be engaging in automation and robotics to avoid employment, not because it is cheaper than employment? This move is having, possibly, an extremely adverse effect on employment opportunities for Australian people. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.35) —Senator Rae is addressing the question of what he calls employment untouchables which he has identified in this case as being people who have been, perhaps on more than one occasion, claimants in respect of workers compensation as the result of injury or alleged injury or illness received at work, and, secondly, those who do not comply with the requirements of medical examinations conducted by certain employers at the time these people are employed. Frankly, I cannot answer that question. I do not know. I have really heard of no specific complaints about that problem. However, of course, the disabilities which attract particular people in relation to employment are a much more widespread problem. All sorts of forms of discrimination exist in employment which are, in a sense, not unrelated to the sorts of matters which Senator Peter Rae has mentioned. Certainly there is a degree of discrimination in employment on the basis of age, I think, and matters of that kind. I am instructed that there is no current inquiry by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to investigate whether the sort of problem which Senator Rae puts before us in a theoretical manner is a real one. But I think that sort of inquiry and its ramifications are enormous in terms of the numbers of matters which might be taken into account in discriminating against people in respect of employment. Senator Cook —He should read the Woodhouse report. Senator BUTTON —Rightly, I think the honourable senator draws attention to the great demarcation dispute which is looming and that is not between different categories of people. It is between people and machines. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.37) —Whilst Senator Button was answering that question, there was an interjection which suggested that perhaps I should have a look at the Woodhouse report. I would simply point to the fact that the Woodhouse report is now fairly ancient and the changes to which I referred-- Senator Button —And so are you, Senator. Senator PETER RAE —Yes, I am prepared to accept that some of us are not getting any closer to our youth. At least I hope we are not. I simply refer to the fact that the figures I quoted from the AIDA report referred to the extreme change that has taken place between the period of that report and now. I want to ask the Minister about another aspect of employment. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of 17 August. I do not necessarily expect the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to recall the article immediately when I refer to it. It was entitled 'Thousands sew at home for a pittance'. It sets out what is happening in relation to the home sweatshop-type conditions which are being imposed on a lot of people in the rag trade. It is claimed that an estimated 53,000 clothing-industry outworkers making up a pool of sweatshop labour now produce about 70 per cent of all clothes manufactured in Australia. I ask the Minister: Does the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations have any information which might either confirm or refute that sort of claim? Can the Minister broaden his answer from that article to which I specifically referred to the general situation of the growth of outworkers on a piece work basis doing work which is not subject to award rates and not subject to employment conditions and the on-costs which have loaded the Australian manufacturing industry with what is seen by many of them as costs which make them uncompetitive. I am talking about the general situation. Is there a large growth in outwork being done? Is this something which is done where the people involved have virtual sweatshop conditions imposed by the nature of their contracts? Can the Minister elaborate at all on that situation? Senator BUTTON(Tasmania-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.41) —There are all sorts of things which make Australian industry uncompetitive. Although on- costs might be one area which decreases the competitiveness of Australian industry there are many other areas. I must say that-- Senator Giles —Like bad management. Senator BUTTON —Yes, like bad management, as an honourable senator interjects. As Minister for Industry and Commerce it is very refereshing to visit companies such as one which I went to last week. It is a metal trades establishment which employs some 700 people and which exports to most countries, including Taiwan, and it has no assistance. Senator Peter Rae —There are some good stories like that around Australia. Senator BUTTON —There are plenty of good stories like that around Australia. The more we hear about them the better it is for the interests of industry in this country. I come back to the question of outworkers. I have not read the article in the Canberra Times but I must say that in discussions at the Textile and Apparel Industry Advisory Council two or three months ago the view was expressed by representatives of the Clothing Trades Union at that meeting that they regarded outworking in the clothing industry at lower rates of pay as a much greater threat to employment in their industry in Australia than imports. There was some disagreement, but not serious disagreement, between the employers and the Clothing Trades Union about that question at that meeting. Of course, each of us has his own impression. A relative of mine visited a Vietnamese family in Melbourne last weekend. The front room of the house had four sewing machines in it which were all being worked on a Sunday afternoon. I am sure that sort of thing happens a great deal. Arising from that meeting of the relevant industry council, I understand that officials of my Department were to have further discussions with the industry about that matter. There was a genuine willingness, I believe on behalf of the manufacturers represented at that council to see what they could do to contribute to any investigation which was conducted. I can add nothing further than that. It is a serious problem and it is particularly important in that one industry. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.45) —I invite the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to bear in mind that he might extend any inquiries he makes beyond the clothing industry, the rag trade, to some of the other sectors of manufacturing industry, including electrical and a number of sections where work can be done at home in the same way as the work he was just describing. I would like to ask a further question in relation to employment arising out of the Government's steel industry plan and to note that part of the reason for the introduction of the steel industry plan was to safeguard the employment and, if possible, to increase the employment opportunities in the steel cities and towns of Australia and to stop the downward trend that is taking place. I refer the Minister to his statement of 11 August in relation to the steel industry plan when he said: Contributions from the New South Wales and South Australian State Governments were also expected now that agreement had been reached between the Commonwealth and the industry. Has there been any further agreement with the States? Have the States, as anticipated, agreed to participate in the plan in any way in holding back costs at least by not increasing charges even if they are not prepared to decrease some of the charges which I think most people accept have been loaded on to sections of the steel industry in recent years. Can the Minister indicate what stage negotiations have reached? What are the employment prospects? The Minister will note that earlier today unfortunately I was at another meeting when the appropriations for the Department of Industry and Commerce were before the Committee. I am trying to ask now the questions which I wanted to ask earlier in relation to employment because that is what we are dealing with. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.47) —I am quite prepared for Senator Peter Rae to come through the front door with his questions if he wants to. He does not have to go around the back door all the time. I was asked first of all about the question of employment under the steel industry plan. One of the purposes of the steel industry plan was to provide secure long term employment in the steel industry. I believe that, subject to qualifications which were incorporated in the plan right from the beginning, that has been done . The level of acceptance of the plan amongst the work force is very high. I visited each of the three steel centres in recent weeks and, as I said, the level of acceptance is high. The level of performance is high. The results are good, particularly in terms of the performance of the companies concerned and the aggression that they have been showing in marketing and in the levels of production. I was asked specifically about the question of State charges and how they bear on employment. I point out that approaches made by the Commonwealth to both the New South Wales and South Australian governments in respect of contributions to the plan have not produced results at this stage, but negotiations are proceeding. I am advised by the New South Wales Minister that a submission will be put to the New South Wales Cabinet on the issue shortly. I cannot recall the current state of play in relation to South Australia. What was sought from the State Government in relation to charges on the steel industry were not decreases in charges but rather an element of predictability during the life of the plan and, particularly, an element of predictability which would ensure that charges were not raised above the level of inflation in any defined period. I still hope to get contributions from the State governments on those questions. In all other respects, the plan is working very satisfactorily and I believe will continue to do so. But if the implication of the senator's question is that the best laid plans of mice and men and of even the Federal Government can be upset by State governments or any other government which imposes heavy charges on an industry, yes, I agree with that. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.50) —I take up the Minister's generous offer, and I ask him a question in relation to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Department has been asked to develop procedures to prevent the speculative transfer of tender quotas. Is it a fact that the Minister has made no announcement as to what has happened with the development of these procedures? Is the Minister able to inform the chamber what progress has been made and what stage of development has been reached? This is a matter to which a question on notice was addressed some months ago. That may help the Minister's recollection, if he has seen it. As I understand it, the request for information was made by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce in December 1982. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.51) —Like the size of the deficit in March of this year, that is something about which the former Government did not tell me. Senator Peter Rae —Or the Department? Senator BUTTON —Or the Department. I was not told about an inquiry made in 1982. In the course of this year, probably in June, I certainly asked the Department to look at this matter quite separately of any previous government action in the matter. But I did not do so with a view to producing a result before next year. It was not in any sense a formal request. It is a matter upon which advice has been sought. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.52) —The next question that I address to the Minister is in relation to industry advisory councils and the Australian Manufacturing Council review. What stage has been reached in that review of the Opposition's participation? Is the furphy correct that it will be announced next week that there will be no parliamentary participation on any of those councils? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.52) —No, on this matter nothing will be announced next week. Senator Peter Rae —Can you answer the other part of the question? Senator BUTTON —I beg the honourable senator's pardon. Progress has been made on the structure and terms of reference of the Australian Manufacturing Council and the industry councils, and consideration is now being given to the final question of composition. The other question to which the Government had to address itself was that of an independent secretariat for those councils. That matter is also well advanced. It is anticipated that the revised councils will be in operation early next year. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.53) —What progress has been achieved in relation to the steel industry plan which promised fast track anti-dumping procedures? When does the Minister anticipate that the new procedures will be able to be announced and implemented? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.54) —There is no intention to announce the new fast track anti-dumping procedures in relation to the steel industry. They will be activated by the steel industry authority, when it is appointed, when the steel industry plan comes into existence on 1 January 1984. It is not anticipated that the mechanism will be needed in the foreseeable future because of the general situation of the industry but, if it is needed, those procedures will be activated on the recommendation of that body. I have no intention of making any announcement about the matter prior to the establishment of the steel industry authority. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.55) —Again I ask a question in relation to steel. The proposed steel mini-mill in Brisbane involves a mill which had been put into production for a relatively short period in Toulon in France just before the steel industry world-wide crash. It has been proposed that it should be purchased by an Australian who apparently has an option and has been putting together a consortium to construct it in Queensland. If that goes ahead, what impact is it likely to have on employment in the existing steel industry cities and towns, and what impact is it likely to have on the steel industry plan? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.56) —First, if the honourable senator is asking me for my view on that matter, I have to say that I do not have a wild degree of enthusiasm about it because I think that the days have gone by when Australia can support any industry that wants to come here in competition with other industries. But there is a more general observation that does not relate in detail to the particular question which has been addressed to me. I understand that discussions and negotiations are taking place between the proposers of that venture and the Queensland Government, and that there has also been some shopping for financial assistance for the venture. I am not sure how successful that has been. I regard the future of that proposal as being by no means assured at this stage . Naturally, as it was mooted, I have taken the opportunity to discuss it with others already involved in the steel industry in Australia, and they take the view that their improved performance and their competitiveness are now such-and will be improving into the foreseeable future-that the venture to which Senator Peter Rae has referred would not be viable and that it would have no substantial effect at all on their operations as the prime integrated steel industry in Australia. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.57) —I ask the Minister, finally, about the developing country preferences review which was announced by the previous Government and was still proceeding, I think, when I last raised the matter with the Minister in May. It was then anticipated that it would be completed by May, but, if not, definitely in June. What is the state of progress in relation to that? When might it be completed? What has been the cause of any delay that may have arisen in relation to it? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.58) —I do not have the same degree of confidence as I apparently had in May, for very obvious reasons, about a solution to that matter. I believe that there will be one in the next two or three weeks. I would not wish to foreshadow what it is likely to be. But, needless to say, a variety of very different views impinge on a solution to that problem, particularly in relation to trading relationships with particular countries which have been, perhaps, the greatest beneficiaries of developing country preferences into Australia. I do not think there is any harm in saying that it was a matter that was to be discussed with the Korean delegation which was coming here recently and which was the victim of the bomb explosion in Rangoon. Factors such as that, amongst other things have been partly responsible for the delay; I am not saying that that was the sole factor. A resolution of that matter has to be reached fairly soon and I am hopeful that it will be in the next two or three weeks. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.00) —Perhaps I can just clarify that by asking: Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) still support the concept that we should accept without question the United Nations list of developing countries and then provide the preference to the countries which manage to gain listing there as opposed to our being a little more circumspect and having regard to the development of those countries and our trade relations with the various countries? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.01) —No, I do not accept the United Nations listing as having any particular validity for Australia. I think one has to look at the two impacts of developing country preferences-the effects on the economies from which imports are coming and the effects on the economy of Australia. Insofar as the effects on the economies from which imports are coming are concerned, I do not think I have to remind Senator Rae that some of the countres which are now beneficiaries of the Australian system of tariff preference when that system was in place had economies which were then equivalent to the poorest economies of the underdeveloped countries now. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.02) —I wonder whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) could give me the total increase in staff, permanent, part time and temporary, for each department. What is the estimated increase in staff in each department by the end of the financial year? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.02) —I think the specifications of the question involved the total of part time and temporary staff. I cannot answer those questions off the top of my head. Senator Walters —Are there officers present? Senator BUTTON —Yes, there are officers present, but Senator Walters should listen for once to what somebody says. I said that I cannot answer those questions off the top of my head, and I do not have a whole lot of officers from all departments sitting on the top of my head, thank goodness. I will certainly obtain those answers for the honourable senator and, if she wishes, I will obtain them in writing. I can inform her that the estimates of increases in staff are very slight. Senator Watson is flagging me down for some reason. Senator Watson —I am telling you to calm down. Senator Walters —He's not ruffled. Senator BUTTON —A Tasmanian debate is going on over there as to whether I am ruffled. I will obtain the information for Senator Walters as quickly as possible. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Communications Proposed expenditure, $376,673,000. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.04) —I want to address some questions relating to division 220, Sub-division 1, item 01, Salaries and allowances. It might be most appropriate if I turn to Budget Paper No. 5 where some figures are set out at page 220. There has been concern within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, particularly amongst those who are associated with the news services, that there may be some move to truncate the news services and to take on contract syndicated news services in their place. Attention has been drawn to the table on page 220 headed 'Australian Broadcasting Corporation Operational Expenditure' and containing certain salary items. The salary items for the radio news service show, for example, that whereas in 1982-83 the expenditure was $8. 484m, only $8.274m has been appropriated for 1983-84. Similarly, if one looks down the list to the television news service, one finds that the appropriation in 1982-83 was $5.733m and for 1983-84 it is only $5.512m. In dollar amounts that is less for 1983-84 than for last year. Whatever the rate of inflation is or is anticipated to be, one would expect a salary increase. The question has been put to us: What is the explanation for the diminution in the appropriation? There is one obvious possibility. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how many pay days there were in each of the two financial years. In the event that the answer relates to the number of pay days, if I divide the figures by 26 or 27, does that in fact make up the difference? Can the Minister tell us why the appropriation for salaries is at that level? He might even be able to tell us the expected employment level in these news services for each of the two years. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.07) —First of all, let me say that the battle about the future of the news services was sort of raised when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Bill was in the House. The Bill, in its ultimate form, was drafted in a manner which satisfied the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Staff Association, amongst others, that there was no intention to reduce the news services as a result of the capacity to take outside news services such as AAP for motor accident cases and things of that kind. I cannot answer the question that Senator Baume has specifically directed to me about the very small decline-I think even in real terms it is not a significant decline- Senator Peter Baume —I think it is; I am not trying to score points. Senator BUTTON —Anyway, I cannot answer the question tonight because there are no officers here from the ABC who might be able to answer that question. If Senator Baume is content for me to take that question on notice, I will obtain an urgent answer for him from the ABC. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.08) —Yes. If we take the appropriation for 1982-83 of $8.48m for the radio news service and do a rough division by 26, assuming there were 26 or 27 pay days, that comes out at about $0.32m. If one adds that $0.32m to the appropriation for 1983-84 it brings it to $8.59m and that in real terms would not be the same appropriation for salaries this year as there was last year. We certainly did not go searching through Budget Paper No. 5 and alight upon this at page 20. It is an expression of concern from some people that these figures may in fact indicate something that has not been made public. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to us why the figures vary like this, what the levels of employment are and whether there is some simple explanation. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.10) —I realise that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) cannot have 101 advisers in the place to cover the various aspects of communications, but I would like just to express some concern as to where the outback now stands with the Aussat satellite system . There have been many reports in the media, correct or incorrect, supposedly of statements being made by one Minister or another. There is a lot of concern among the people of the outback about what they can expect from the satellite system. The Minister would be aware of the Isolated Children's Parents Association, that organisation that looks after the interests of isolated children, particularly those in the outback. Recent Press statements have implied that the Government will make decisions on the allocation of the Aussat 30-watt high power transponders and that they will be networking nationally. As I understand it, if they are networking on the eastern coast of Australia, it will have a deleterious effect on reception in the outback. Not only that; there will also be no specialising in programs such as local news, local community programs, adult vocational education programs, Aboriginal programs, educational programs and the like. I ask the Minister whether he is in a position at present to indicate to the Isolate Children's Parents Association and the people of the outback the present position. Are matters still in a state of flux? Is Cabinet, or is the Government, still considering the situation? If it is still considering the situation, when is it expected that some definite information and news will be available for the people who are most concerned? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.13) —Nobody can expect anything from the Aussat satellite until the latter half of 1985, when it actually goes up. In terms of the proposed use of the satellite, the Government is very conscious of the concerns of outback and remote communities. Those two categories of communities were perhaps confused-not intentionally, but in some way-in the honourable senator's question. First, there are the concerns of regional television stations which are likely to be affected in the longer term, at least, by any use of the satellite. Secondly, there are the interests of even more remote communities to which regional television does not reach. Senator Kilgariff referred to the Isolated Children's Parents Association as being one body which is probably more particularly concerned with the interests of the furthest remote areas. That, in a sense, has been represented in part by a body known as TV Australia, which has made representations to the Government about a method of using the satellite for services to remote communities. The Government is examining all these proposals. A final decision has not been made but, as I understand it, it will be made this year. The people will have a year or 18 months to think about it before the satellite goes up. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.14) —I thank the Minister for giving at least some information on the situation. I now turn to the actual ownership of the Aussat satellite. Is it the Government's intention that Telecom Australia should be the responsible authority for the administration and operation of the satellite, or does the Government still lean to its being owned by Aussat Pty Ltd? That would mean that the Government would completely own the shares. A possibility which has been discussed in some areas is that private enterprise would purchase some 49 per cent of the shares. Is the Minister in a position to indicate what the Government is thinking at the moment? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.15) —The Government has not made a decision on this matter. Again, it is a matter which comes up in the same context as the use to which the satellite will be put, which Senator Kilgariff asked me about in his last question. I think it is probably fair to say that Aussat Pty Ltd will own and manage the satellite. The question is: Who will own Aussat? That is a question which has not been finally determined. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.16) —I raise one further matter which is of some concern. I take the Minister back quite a few years. Actually, I take him back to the days of Cyclone Tracey, when Radio Australia was blown apart on Cox Peninsula in the Darwin area. At that time the authorities were considering transmitters to beam high fidelity radio signals throughout the outback. The people of the outback would have been able to receive Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs originating in Darwin. This beaming from the Cox Peninsula would have covered the whole of the outback. For various technical reasons, as I understand it, that proposal has changed considerably. It has been thought in the last two years that these outback transmitters should be based in places such as Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs. These outback transmitters would act as an umbrella to cover the whole of the outback. They would provide a very good reception to people no matter where they were in the outback. Plans had been progressing quite well, I had thought, judging from various media and Government reports that this form of communication would be available next year. But at the moment there appears to be nothing forthcoming as to what is happening in bringing about this type of communication. Is the Minister in a position to indicate the situation in regard to these inland transmitters providing some umbrella type of coverage that would bring to the mining fields and the Aboriginal settlements and into the houses of people working in the outback ABC programs with a quality of reception as good as that experienced in towns and cities? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(9.18) —As I understood it, the Cox Peninsula project was related to Radio Australia. Senator Kilgariff —This was an aspect of it that I was speaking to. Senator BUTTON —I understand that that was implicit in Senator Kilgariff's question. Although that facility was originally considered as being useful for the Territory in providing an umbrella, as Senator Kilgariff terms it, it was subsequently decided to provide a series of smaller umbrellas. I think it is no secret that the planning division of the Department of Communications has had a heavy backlog of work. I recall asking Mr Sinclair, when he was the appropriate Minister, how far the backlog extended. He replied that there was a 10-year backlog. That was about 18 months ago. Since then there has been some progress and additional funding was made available in the Budget to the Department for speeding up the planning process. In this Budget $600,000 has been appropriated for the specific purpose of the inland service stations to which Senator Kilgariff referred. I do not know how far that takes it down the line, but work is in progress on that and a definite start has been made in terms of commitment of funds. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.20) —I ask a question concerning the extension of television services on Eyre Peninsula, particularly with respect to the provision of assistance to the private operator on the peninsula. For some time now he has been trying to extend the commercial television service to Leigh Creek and Woomera as well as to other parts of that more remote area of South Australia which do not enjoy benefits of regular commercial television broadcast . I just want to know what progress is being made through the Department of Communications with respect to that area. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.21) —I am unable to inform the honourable senator at this moment of what precise progress has been made. I am told that the honourable senator has been asking this question since 1975-- Senator Jessop —Earlier than that; 1969. Senator BUTTON —Senator Jessop has been asking this question since 1969 and in that whole period it does not seem that much progress has been made. I am unable to account for the last seven months out of the total period to which he refers but I think his patience has been such that if he would allow me the indulgence of providing him with an answer on the progress which has or has not been made, I will do that. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.22) —That is a reasonable response. I would like also to ask whether, in the context of the satellite service that is contemplated for Australia-I noticed Senator Kilgariff followed that line of questioning with respect to Aussat-some provision will be made to provide commercial television services with access to that facility and whether the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications can assure the Senate that consideration will be given to the smaller operators in the regional areas of Australia that are providing local services which are of great value to the people living there. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.22) —Yes, consideration is being given to them, and has to be given to them. They have provided a very valuable and important service over many years and their interests must not be ignored in the use of the satellite. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.23) —I draw the attention of the Committee to the provision of ethnic television in Adelaide. As many honourable senators would know, the former Government promised the introduction of ethnic television in Adelaide in this financial year. I understand that the Government has given a commitment to introduce ethnic television in that city in the next financial year, 1984-85, and I am seeking an assurance from the Government at this point of time that that is definitely going to occur and that planning is being undertaken by the Special Broadcasting Service along those lines. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.23) —I am aware, from my own knowledge, that the Special Broadcasting Service has been planning the extension of the Channel 0-28 television facility to Adelaide. I understand that whatever is necessary has been committed for next year in relation to the extension of that service. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.24) —I would just like to ask the Minister whether it is certain that the service will be established in the next financial year. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.24) —Nothing in this life is certain, but I believe so. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.25) —I have a question I wish to ask the Minister. I refer to the radio telephone system which operates throughout the outback but which is now in a most chaotic state. This has been brought about by the development that has taken place in the outback. There are now more settlements and mining fields. The population of the area is increasing with the result, as I have said, that radio telephone system now is absolutely chaotic. People on the radio telephone actually have to wait for hours to get a call through. Of course, one can well imagine that it could be very dangerous in emergencies if communication cannot be made with the various centres which can provide relief to the people making those emergency calls. I understand that some work has been done to remedy this situation. Perhaps a new type of radio telephone could be installed. There have been many media reports about a wonderful new system that will be brought to the people of the outback which will make their lives plain sailing. This has been going on for quite a long time, despite the complaints of the people in the outback, despite the chaotic situation and the fact that emergency systems are required. There has been no real answer to their problems. Is the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications in a position now to indicate what is happening within Telecom Australia? There have been many promises. Can Telecom indicate when the people of the outback are likely to get this new digital transmission system? There has been much talk about it but no results. Can the Minister give any indication of when Telecom will honour its promise by endeavouring to improve this rather chaotic situation? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.27) —I am not able to answer that question at the moment. My recollection is that Telecom Australia, in parts of Queensland, has installed at least on an experimental basis, the digital transmission to which Senator Kilgariff referred. I am unable to say anything about the outback radio telephone services but perhaps I can make an inquiry about that on behalf of the honourable senator and let him know. I hope I have clear the implication in his question. It was not that the Government had been talking a great deal about this. I think the honourable senator was referring to Press speculation and I think that is correct-there has been Press speculation about it based on what has happened in Queensland. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP B Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $653,298,000. Senator Walters —Mr Temporary Chairman, before we start to consider the estimates for the Department of Social Security, I wish to raise a matter concerning the Department of Health. It was not until this afternoon that I received the answers to the questions that I had been promised during the sittings of Estimates committees. I do not think other committee members received them, either. A number of questions are still not answered. Seeing as I did not receive the answers until so late and have not had time to peruse them, could we put of consideration of the estimates for the Department of Health until tomorrow when we have had time to look at the information? I do not know whether Senator Elstob received these answers any earlier. Senator Elstob —It was late this afternoon. Senator Walters —We have not had time to read the answers provided by the Department to us; so could we put off the Department until tomorrow? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Senator Walters, you are talking about the Department of Health. I called the Department of Social Security. Of course, it is possible that we will not get to our consideration of the Department of Health tonight; so could we wait until we are closer to considering the estimates of that department and then the Committee can make a decision as to whether it wants to proceed or bypass them. Senator Walters —The reason I suggested this course of action was that if we agree to the consideration being postponed there is no point in keeping officers from the Department of Health for perhaps another one and a half hours. It seems to me illogical to keep the gentlemen from the Department waiting if we can make the decision right now. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I intend to proceed with the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Social Security, unless the Committee considers otherwise. The question now before the Chair is that the votes for the Department of Social Security be passed without request. Senator Peter Baume —If the Clerks help us to prepare the appropriate procedural motion, may we move it in a couple of moments when it is ready? Senators Walters , Elstob and Messner have indicated that they did not receive answers to questions until today. All they want is some time overnight to examine the answers. Mr Temporary Chairman, if you say that you want a procedural motion I am perfectly happy to move one. It seems to me that it would be easier if we could deal with the matter by way of an agreement. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —The Chair is happy if an agreement is made. The Chair cannot proceed without some procedural motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —In an attempt to do the right thing, I seek leave to make a statement on this matter. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I have no reason to disadvantage Senator Walters or anyone else who has not had the opportunity to read the answers from the Department of Health. I merely make the comment that it never seemed to concern her when the Opposition was in government that we did not get the answers until late in the afternoon when the appropriations were being considered. However, if Senator Walters needs time, I have no concern about deferring the consideration of the estimates for the Department of Health. I assume that Senator Walters is willing to go on with the consideration of the other departments after the Department of Social Security, the answers from which I assume, she has had time to read, if she has any interest in them at all. As Senator Baume said, the Opposition would have liked time in which to prepare a procedural motion. If Senator Walters and her colleagues received the answers to the questions this afternoon I would have thought they would have had time to approach me as the Minister or the Government and would have had plenty of time to prepare a procedural motion. If members of the Opposition cannot get their act together I am still willing to concede that they need time to read the answers to the questions. Therefore, I am perfectly happy to delay the consideration of the Department of Health until tomorrow, the next day or whenever it comes up. I just point out that it is interesting that when we were in Opposition this never seemed to be of any concern to Government senators at the time. Because of their new found concern we are willing to concede that they need time to consider the answers. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his forebearance. I simply make the point that a significant number of questions, were unanswered at the Estimates Committee hearing. Senator Grimes —There is every year. Senator MESSNER —That may be so. I understand that the answers have been received by one or two honourable senators. I certainly have not seen answers to my questions. I have not had the opportunity of going through them. Consequently , I would like the opportunity of doing so before the Committee proceeds further in its consideration. A great deal of work has yet to be done. I thank the Minister for his action. I hope that he will move the appropriate motion when the time comes. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume) agreed to: That after the consideration of the votes relating to the departments of Social Security, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Housing and Construction the consideration of the votes relating to the Department of Health be postponed until the next day of sitting. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.35) —The first issue that I would like to raise in this Committee relates to a matter raised by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) yesterday in answer to a question from Senator Robertson in connection with the valuation of shares for the purposes of the assets test. Honourable senators will recall that the Minister made a point in connection with the effect upon person's assets, that is those assets being taken into account to determine a person's entitlement to a pension. He was commenting upon a rumour which indicated that shares could not be sold in the period following the Budget when the announcement was made that all subsequent valuations would be taken into account in determining people's entitlements. The Minister sought to make the point that, as a result of that decision in the Budget, that did not preclude people from selling shares and, thereby, taking part in any commercial activity which would otherwise have been taken into account in determining eligibility. Notwithstanding the Minister's comments, it seems to me that he has made the point during the course of his remarks that consideration would be given to the sale of shares. I ask the question: By virtue of his statement yesterday is that consideration to be exempted and not taken into account in the calculation of entitlement for the assets test, whereas if it had been left in the form of shares it would have been taken into account? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.37) —I think I get the gist of the honourable senator's question. The question I answered for Senator Robertson was a question which arose from rumours which had been put around that , if someone had shares-I interposed or any other property-and they sold them, by selling those shares for a consideration that would be considered deprivation and the person would have been deemed to have still possessed the shares. Quite clearly that is not so and never has been so. For instance, if I may go through it in a few stages, if someone has $10,000, $20,000, or whatever you like, under the assets test which was in existence before, that was deemed to have been yielding 10 per cent. But if someone spent $5,000 of that on a trip around the world that person would receive due consideration for that $5,000. There is no question that that person would still be considered to possess that $5,000. But if that person gave that money away for the purpose of qualifying for the income test at the moment, or the means test if it were in existence, he would still be considered to have that asset. In the case of shares or any other property, if people sell them and receive a consideration for them tn they are not deemed to have deprived themselves of that amount of money for the purposes of the income test at the moment, or the assets test in the future. If they receive $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000 for those shares then that amount of money is on assets which they have and it will be counted in the assets test. But it will not be considered to be deprivation if they have sold those shares for a consideration. It may well be considered in the assets test. I would expect that, although we have no assets test at the moment-a fact which is known to everyone in this chamber but apparently is not known to Mr Sinclair in another place-if they give those shares away for the purpose of qualifying for the assets test they would be deemed to be still in possession of them. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.39) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for his answer. Could he also tell honourable senators what value of the shares would be taken into account in any financial year as it is quite possible that pensioners will have difficulty in trying to assess whether or not they should sell their shares and take advantage of the opportunities that the Minister has just outlined? Could the Minister tell us whether that entitlement ought to be taken into account on 30 June in any particular year, or in any other part of the year, or perhaps on a day to day basis? Could he please give us some indication of how that might be calculated? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.40) —I would have expected that past practice would have been utilised in this area and that would be that the share value is the market valuation at the time of determination of the income and assets. First of all, provision is available for appeal under the social security system to a person who is subjected to that valuation. People did not have that right before. Secondly, if there is a drastic change in the value of shares they can seek a revaluation. That is the way we are thinking at the moment. But I point out to the honourable senator that, as everyone else here knows, we have been in consultation with various groups in the community and within government and the bureaucracy to determine the details of the assets test which will shortly be put before the Parliament. I think that then, rather than now, is the time to discuss this matter because in fact the assets test, apart from the cost of the staffing provisions which is contained in the estimates, is not the subject of the Appropriation Bills. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.42) —The other question I have concerns the various reports that we have been asking the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) to present to the Parliament in connection with the decision making process which led to the Government making its decision on the assets test. As I understand it, a working group of officials was set up on 30 March 1983, some 25 days after the election of the present Government, to consider all retirement income policies. In fact, I understand that that group made a report to the Government on 1 May 1983 which covered issues relating to occupational superannuation and the age pension system. It included the reintroduction of an assets test. It was obvious that the May mini-Budget decisions resulted from the report of that group. But it is significant to note that the assets test was not included in the mini-Budget of 19 May. I ask the Minister: What recommendations were made in that report about assets testing? Can he confirm or otherwise that the report recommended in favour of assets testing? Can he outline to us the reasons why the Government did not accept those recommendations? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.43) —I am interested to see that Senator Messner continues his fishing exercise. The Government, as I have said in this place, set up a working party of officials on or about 30 March 1983 to examine retirement policy. That working party consisted of officers from the Treasury, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Security. I think that the Australian Taxation Office and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat were also included. That group's report, as the honourable senator said, was submitted on 1 May 1983 and covered all sorts of issues such as occupational superannuation, as I remember, and the age pension system. Certainly, any comprehensive report like that would have had to include the reintroduction of the assets test. That report was considered before the May economic statement- the mini-Budget, as Senator Messner calls it. But it was not the sole determinant of what should be considered in that May Budget. My recollection is that it broadly canvassed all the options. As a result, another working group was set up on 27 July consisting of the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Veterans' Affairs specifically to examine the assets test issue alone. It reported some time before the Budget. After assuming government in March we were faced in April and May with a very difficult economic situation. As a result of this working party, of the expenditure review committee of Cabinet, of the many consultations between various departments, and of the Economic Summit we made certain decisions in May . As a continuation of that-and we said at the time that the May economic statement should be considered as part of the whole budgetary process-we went on to consider the Budget. In the Budget we announced that we intended to reintroduce an assets test and to discuss that assets test in the post-Budget period. Those reports came down, as Senator Messner knows that such reports do, with a whole series of options. The choise of those options is left to the Government and the Cabinet. Those reports were documents commissioned by the Cabinet to help the Government make its policy decisions. For that reason I said , as previous Ministers for Social Security and Treasurers have said, that they would remain Cabinet documents. They considered not only the assets test but also the superannuation system, the occupational superannuation system, the pension system generally and the whole area of retirement incomes. They came down with a series of options. It is not my recollection that they made one recommendation over another. That was left to the social policy committee of the Cabinet and to the Cabinet itself. I merely say, as other members of the Cabinet have said, that the Cabinet viewed the facts and the results of that working party and made its decision. It is now up to the Parliament and the community to decide whether those decisions were right. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.47) —I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he tell us why the Government took a different decision as a result of the later report on 27 July 1983 from the second group he mentioned in his reply comprising officers of the departments of Social Security, Prime Minister and Cabinet and Veterans' Affairs, which report was received on 11 August this year, about 12 days before the Budget? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.48) —That is a clever question but not a question that particularly worries me. The assumption by Senator Messner is that the first committee recommended differently from the second committee. I made it perfectly clear in my first answer that the first committee, which sat from about 30 March to 1 May, considered the areas of retirement policy and occupational superannuation and came down with a description of what was happening in those areas and, in some cases, with certain options which may be performed in those areas. Following meetings of the expenditure review committee of Cabinet, it was the Cabinet which made the decisions and which is responsible for the decisions. I remind the good senator that we came into government in early March and that the economic statement was at the end of May. We first considered the whole retirement policy at that time and further considered it after that time in the lead up to the Budget decisions . In all that time the social policy committee of Cabinet and the Cabinet itself considered the various options for decisions to be made in the Budget which, I point out again, should be seen in the context of the Budget and the May statement. Those decisions were made as a result of the deliberations of the Cabinet. It was assisted by working parties of the various departments, working parties from within my Department and working parties from within Senator Messner's old department, the Department of Veterans' Affairs. To suggest, as Senator Messner did, that the first working party came down with one recommendation and the second working party came down with another is wrong. To suggest that we made a decision in May not to introduce an assets test and that we made a decision in August to introduce an assets test is quite misleading. It was a consideration over all the time from March to August as, I point out, it was a consideration of the previous Government for several years. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.51) —The Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) has not addressed himself to the question. My question is: Why did the Government make the decision along the lines that it did in such a short time immediately preceding the Budget? I point out again that it was only 12 days from the time in which the second report was received until the Budget was handed down in the Parliament on 23 August. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.52) —If Senator Messner believes that the Government's decision was made on, I think he said 11 August, without any previous consideration, he is wrong. Senator Messner —You have told us that the report was received that day. Senator GRIMES —Just a minute, senator. I have also told the honourable senator that we considered the various decisions from the time we came into government, from the end of March when we had organised our departments and set up the various working parties until the Budget. To suggest that we suddenly upped on 11, 12 or 13 August, or whatever date is suggested, and said 'Whacko, we will introduce an assets test because someone has suggested it' is quite wrong. It was under consideration by the expenditure review committee and Cabinet for a considerable time before that. I cannot tell the honourable senator for how many weeks it was considered, but it was certainly always an option from the time the first committee was set up on 30 March. To imply that there is some temporal relationship between that report being made on 11 September and the decision being made just as a result of that report is nonsense. That is not the way that government works, and Senator Messner knows that is not the way that government works. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.53) —I am greatly concerned about this matter. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has told us that he had the matter in mind as early as the mini-Budget in May. In fact, having rejected one report from the special committee set up to investigate this matter the Government did, in fact, have in mind all along that it would introduce as assets test and did not take the people into its confidence. In fact, I recall that the Government went through a softening-up process in the public arena during June and July in order to get people used to the idea that an assets test would be introduced. I recall very clearly the statements made by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) at various Returned Services League conferences when he spoke of millionair service pensioners and people of that kind who were apparently ripping off the system. We do not have to go into the argument about how misinformed that information was because, in fact, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs claimed that he would name those people. He would not come into this Parliament and name them. Why, I do not know. He claimed that he had all the courage of his convictions, but he failed to name them. If the Minister for Social Security has further information about this matter I believe that the only way he can possibly clear it up is for him to provide this Parliament with the reports which I have asked him for continually and which I have sought under the Freedom of Information Act from the head of his Department . The head of his Department has refused to give them to me, no doubt under the direction of the Minister. I ask him now to table those reports so that we can get a clear impression of exactly what the Government's intention was when it considered its retirement income policy. I make this point because I believe that it is terribly important for Australians to understand that, at no stage in the evidence brought forward to this Parliament or in the public arena has this Government given us a comprehensive policy statement about retirement income. The only way it can clear that doubt in people's minds is to bring forward those reports and make them public. The Minister has refused to do that. He has also now given us the most disturbing information that in fact the Government contemplated the introduction of an assets test as early as possibly March or April of this financial year and, for its own reasons, sought not to do so in the 19 May statement. It seems to me that the Government has not taken the people into its confidence. It has gone through this process of softening us up, of trying to determine where the weak points in this issue lie before it brought in the legislation. This is a totally cynical political exercise on the part of the Minister no doubt in order to achieve the end of an assets test. I want to know why. What official advice was given to the Minister? Why did his Government refuse to introduce the legislation in May and seek to do it at a later time? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.57) —I rise to answer some of the most outrageous statements I have heard in what are usually very placid affairs; that is, the Estimates in this place. First of all, for Senator Messner to suggest that the Director-General of the Department of Social Security refused his ridiculous request for Cabinet documents under the Freedom of Information Act under my direction is outrageous and he knows it is outrageous. He does not know and he should know as a former Minister of the Crown in this place that that is the function of the Director-General. I did not direct the Director-General to do so. He did what was quite clearly properly his duty as Director-General of the Department of Social Security. If Senator Messner wants to cast reflections on the Director-General of Social Security or me, I do not care, but he should not do it in that way. Secondly, he says that the Minister and I have admitted that we rejected one report and then accepted another. I have clearly pointed out that we did not reject one report. Always, in any comprehensive survey of retirement policy in this country an assets test is an option. I ask Senator Chaney, the former Minister for Social Security, whether he will not admit that when he was a Minister an assets test was always an option and was an option considered by his Government and by his Cabinet. It always is an option and it is always one of the options that one will consider. If we do not make a comprehensive review of the possibilities and if we do not examine all the possibilities, we are in fact not doing our duty as a government or as Ministers. I find the most extraordinary statement is that of the shadow Minister, Senator Messner, who came in here and said that this Government has not put before this Parliament a comprehensive retirement policy. I think that is an extraordinary statement from someone who is now shadow Minister for Social Security in a party which has just been in government for seven years. He got up in this place and said: 'We have no comprehensive retirement policy. We are developing a comprehensive retirement policy'. He then comes in here and gets the Senate to set up a committee to develop that policy for him. The problem is that we have a comprehensive retirement policy. We did consider all the options. Amongst those options obviously was an assets test. If the honourable senator is saying that the previous Government did not consider it at all, ever, I suggest he never made a comprehensive examination of the retirement policy in this country. But all I can say is that in my time as shadow Minister I was approached by members of the then Government as to whether it would not be an idea to reintroduce an assets test. I would be very surprised if any of those senators would get up in this place now and say that it was never considered by the previous Government or the previous Minister. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —I remind the Committee that it is considering divisions 560 and 561 of the Department of Social Security. We have drifted into a debate on policy past and present. I ask that any honourable senators who wish to participate in the debate to tie their comments to the matter under discussion; that is, those divisions under Social Security. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.01) —Mr Temporary Chairman, I will of course abide by your ruling. It does in fact fit in with the matters I wish to raise. I wish to respond in part to the invitation issued by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). I want to do so in the context of some inquiry of the Minister about the actual financial results of the measures taken by the Government to date to have a more needs based welfare system. One aspect of that change of policy by the Government is of course the intiial move which was made to restrict the income test-free pension for the over-70s. That was done by means of the Government introducing a new and separate income test for the over-70s. It is an income test which is of course more generous in its provisions than the income test which applies generally. There has been some discussion in the Senate itself about the effect of the new forms which have been sent out by the Department asking those people who are in receipt of the income test-free pension to advise the Department of their income position. It is my understanding from the Minister that one effect of those forms has been to show up a group of recipients of the over-70s income test-free pension who in fact are entitled to a larger pension than they have been receiving. In other words, their actual income has been at a level which meant that they have received a higher income tested pension than the income test-free pension they had been receiving. If that is the case, I ask the Minister to indicate to the Committee whether he can tell us what additional annual expenditure is involved in the payment of the increased pensions which are payable because of the change which the Government has introduced. To avoid the Minister having to repeat the comments which he made at an earlier time when we were sitting as the Senate I am not for a moment suggesting that those pensioners who receive an increased income should not have received it. Of course they should if their income was low. But the fact of the matter is that the Minister has told us that it is not a matter of total savings through introducing this new scheme. It has uncovered a group of people whose entitlements are in fact larger. I would be interested to know whether the Minister or his Department are yet in a position to tell us what the additional order of expenditure is because of those increases. I would also be interested to know whether the Minister or his advisers can tell us what is the additional cost which has been incurred by the imposition of the income test in these circumstances. Can the Minister give us any more up to date figures of the cost of administration of the new means test which is being introduced under the August Budget? Once again, Mr Temporary Chairman, it is not a matter of there being total net savings. There are some administrative costs. It is very expensive in manpower. It is quite complicated and of course one of the disadvantages of the means test which is being introduced is that it is administratively cumbersome and intrusive, as all means and income tests are, and it will involve the aged people concerned in a greater amount of paper work in many cases and in the disclosure of more of their affairs. That brings me to the point that the Minister raised in his comments. Of course , when I was Minister for Social Security, I obtained advice not once but many times on the possible areas for savings. Clearly, if one is trying to administer a fixed Budget, one wishes to see what is the most effective way to expend those moneys. As I recall the advice which was consistently given to me by the Department, it was possible to make savings of, I think-this is the figure which sticks in my mind-something like $170m by reverting to something like the 1976 means test. But it is also my recollection that the Department was never in favour of that. It never advised that I should make that recommendation to the Government because of the administrative difficulties and for the sorts of reasons, I guess, which led to the switch from the means to the income test in 1976. While Senator Grimes will know of my broad and general sympathy, which I have often stated, for needs-based welfare with a view to looking after the needy better, I have to say in response to his question that I never put to the Government the proposition that we should go back to the means test. On the balance of the views which were put to me it seemed to me that it involved more negatives than positives and that, unless it was part of a broader reorganisation of the social security, superannuation and so on system, it simply was not a step to be taken. I simply say that during my term of office no proposition was put to the Cabinet that I can recall-I am sure that I would recall putting such a proposition if I did so-suggesting that the Government should reimpose a means test, hence it was not before the Government for consideration during that period. So Senator Grimes is incorrect in his reference to that matter. There is a significant question to be raised here which I think is important in terms of our ability to judge the advantage to be gained by imposing additional administrative burdens not just on the Department which, after all, simply has to employ more staff to carry that burden, but on the aged of Australia. I think it is important that we get as clear as possible an idea of the net benefits to revenue because, of course, those net benefits are the reason for imposing the test and are the advantage which is supposed to cancel out the disadvantages which of necessity flow from the imposition of any form of direct mechanism. I wish to raise a related matter during the Committee consideration of these estimates. As I understand it the Department sent out to persons who were receiving the income test free pension a quite detailed form asking them to advise of their income and assets. I looked fairly quickly at one form. It seemed to me that the forms, as so many of our forms are-I concede that this was the case under our Administration also-were quite complicated. They required people to get together much information and were potentially confusing for people who were not used to filling in a number of forms. I do not know the exact wording of the form but it was made a bit simpler in that people whose income was such that they would not get a pension were required just to send it back with a line through it, which would tell the Department that they could be taken off the roll. I think that was a sensible administrative arrangement and I do not quarrel with it. I am a bit curious, though, about the form of letter which went out to those pensioners who either just ran a line through the form or did not fill in the form at all. Of course, some would have seen that as a solution to their problem. I think the correspondence from the Department indicated that people might do that, but obviously a person who did so would be likely to lose his pension. I do not know whether the Minister has those forms with him. If he does not, I think it would be helpful to the Parliament and to the Committee if we could see -first the initial form which asked for the statement of income and assets and then the form-I assume that the same forms would have been used throughout Australia-which was subsequently sent to people who until recently were in receipt of the income test free pension, which is no longer available. I have raised a series of matters. I hope that the Minister, either now or shortly, can give us the best available figures on the cost of introducing these new arrangements and hence the net benefit which at this stage it is thought will accrue from this year on an annual basis from the changes which the Government has made. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —I thank Senator Chaney for his intervention. I think it was a useful one because it put the matter into perspective. Quite clearly, amongst the option that he considered as a Minister for Social Security, even if it did not get to the Cabinet stage, was the reintroduction of an assets test. I agree with that. Any Minister for Social Security or anyone looking at the retirement system in this country would be obliged to consider the reintroduction of that assets test if considering a reorganisation of the system. This is particularly so in view of the fact that when the assets test was removed in 1976, it was considered to be a no-cost option and ended up in the first year costing something like $70m. Senator Chaney is also correct when he says one would probably be unwise to consider the reintroduction of the assets test unless it were done as part of a broader reorganisation of the retirement systems and retirement incomes in this country. I think these were his words. That is exactly what the present Government is doing. We looked at the systems. We looked first of all at the fact that we have an increasingly aging population. We looked at the fact that in future the number of taxpayers to support the number of people on benefits and pensions in general would be decreasing. We looked at the fact that since 1976, when the assets test was removed, there was a great burgeoning of contrivance schemes to get around the income test and that was aggravated further by the abolition of probate and gift duty. We looked at the fact that on the Treasury estimates some $2,600m was removed from the system as part of the revenue forgone for concessions made available to those in the superannuation system and in particular those in a lump sum superannuation system. We looked at the fact that the number of people receiving the age pension had risen from 71 per cent of the age population to, I think, 87 per cent of the relevant age population. I cannot be held to those figures exactly. From 1971 to 1981 the number of persons receiving the age pension had increased from 71 per cent to 87 per cent. Quite clearly, what was facing us, and what was facing the previous Government, was the fact that we were going to have this increasing number of people on age pensions and pensions generally because also, at the same time, single pensions were going up and for a while invalid pensions were going up. We had an increasing number of people on unemployment benefit. We were facing the fact that those people on those pensions and benefits who had no extra income, no extra assets, no extra capacity to supplement their income, were suffering, because no government, be it Labor or Liberal, was in a position to increase the base rate of pensions to those people if we had this continual drain on the Budget and this continual difficulty in funding these income support payments over that time. So we did take a broad look at the situation and that is why we initially changed the taxation arrangements for lump sum superannuation. That is why we also, in the May statement, reintroduced an income test. However, it was a more generous income test for those on the over-70 frozen rate pension. That is why we later on came to the conclusion that we needed an assets test. That is why we will need a review of the various superannuation schemes in this country-so that we can produce a system whereby we have a national contributory superannuation scheme under which we can encourage in the private system the payment of weekly superannuation payments or annuities rather than the increasing concentration on lump sums with their special tax concessions. That is why we did this in the context of all those other changes. It is quite wrong to take the reintroduction of the assets test as a matter in isolation. I think that is recognised by all people who think about the system. Of course we considered the assets test as Senator Chaney and any Minister for Social Security must have considered the assets test. Probably the tragedy was that the Government and the Cabinet at the time when Senator Chaney was Minister did not consider it in the context of all the other changes. To suggest that in considering it we should have made a public announcement on 30 March that we were going to consider the assets test and all the other things we considered is nonsense, and Senator Messner knows it is nonsense. In this game one does not walk around the place thinking aloud, and we never have, although I would have thought that the speech I made at the National Economic Summit Conference was pretty close to that and, as it happened, certain things arose out of it. Senator Chaney talked about the administrative costs of the assets test and the net benefits. I believe it was estimated that initially, in the first year while we established the assets test, we would need some $20m. In later years, once the system is established and the early assessments are checked, I think the figure will come down to something like $3m. But, again, I will see whether I can get that information from the Department in the near future. I thought we answered all those questions at the Estimates committee hearing. The estimates of the amount of money gained in the Department of Social Security are not easy to determine. Since 1976, when the assets test was removed, we have not had exact information on the assets holdings of pensioners. But we do know that there has been a great burgeoning of schemes. Anyone who reads the Australian Financial Review, the National Times, Prime Time, the Australian Pensioner or any of the other pensioner organisation papers will know how such schemes have burgeoned in this country. Those people do not put in those advertisements for nothing. I think the estimate for the Department of Social Security-I stand to be corrected-is in the range of $150m to $200m, but I am not sure. My advisers can check on that. In the area of service pensions, Senator Gietzelt's Department of Veterans' Affairs, because of the relative affluence of that group of pensioners compared with others-I am not saying they are affluent-the estimate is in fact relatively considerably higher. Senator Gietzelt would have to get the figures. We are talking of a figure in the range of $100m to $200m initially. But the simple fact of the matter is that if we continue with the present system and allow people to take lump sums at such great concessions, and continue to allow the various contrivance schemes to increase, the burden on the taxpayer will increase more and more. Someone had to bit the bullet and we have done so. In relation to the re-introduction of the income test for those over 70, the estimated saving, again from recollection, is $170m. The first pay day which involves the reintroduction of that income test is tomorrow so we have no exact figures. I believe that in answer to a question I remarked that one of the things that had happened in the Department since it has been doing the review of the over 70s pension is that it found a group of people-one receives sporadic reports from all over the country-who have been receiving less than their entitlement. I have asked the Department to tell me exactly how many people there are and the cost involved. But because the test has only just been introduced and, as I have said, the first pay day is not until tomorrow, I do not have the exact figure. The staffing increase involved in introducing the over 70s income test is estimated to be 55 persons in 1983-84. That cost, considering most salary levels, will be approximately $1m in a full year. I suggest that that is not a very high cost. I suggest that in that area, as in other areas, the Department of Social Security is demonstrating that its administrative costs, when compared with the amount of money it handles, are very low. I, like Senator Chaney, certainly am keen to find out just how many people are in that unusual position of receiving less than their entitlement and to see how that will affect the revenue, but I do not think the effect will be great. The review forms were sent out. People were told, very sensibly, that if their income was so high that clearly they were not able to receive a pension they could send back the form with the line through it, as Senator Chaney said. I am not sure whether that method was used but that was the idea, as I recall it. Of course, some people do not send back the forms and other people cannot be contacted. For all sorts of reasons people do not send back their forms. They may have moved and some people may even be dead. In recent weeks the Department in all the States has concentrated on trying to contact those people who did not send the forms back. As well as wanting to apply the over-70s income test we want to make sure that there are not large numbers of people who in fact are not receiving their entitlement. The results of that campaign to make sure that people are getting their entitlements, to make sure that people do get their forms back, will be available in a few weeks. I hope to be in a position to let the Senate know the results. I remind the honourable senators that the test has only just been introduced. I share Senator Chaney's concern-it is the concern of anyone involved in social security-that of course any means test or any income test involves asking people about their income, their assets and involves people filling out forms. But the only alternative is a universal system of payment. Any universal system of payment of this type of necessity involves those payments being taxable. If the Department of Social Security did not seek information through forms and did not seek information from people to determine a means test the Taxation Office would do so. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other as to which way it should be done. As it happens, since 1908 this country has gone down the path of means tested payments in the case of age pensions, widows pensions and invalid pensions. I do not believe, in comparing that system with those operating overseas, that it is in fact a bad path to follow. Those countries that have a universal system and pay a means test free pension inevitably have stuck on top of the pension supplementary pensions or supplementary assistance with a means test harsher and more intrusive than any means test that has ever been introduced in this country. Also, those countries which have a means test free pension in fact have as a base rate of pension a pension which is lower than the sort of rates of pension that we are able to pay in this country. Finally, it seems to me that the best compromise is in fact the introduction of a contributory scheme, a national superannuation scheme or a pension plan as it is called in Canada. It is in that direction I believe we are moving and it is in that direction that I believe both of the larger political parties in this country have wanted to move for a long time. The simple fact of the matter is that we cannot go down that path unless we do something about the privileged position of those who are getting lump sum superannuation payments and those who are in the privileged position of having access to superannuation in the first place. We cannot go down that path while we have a means test which is as inequitable as the means test in place now. It is for that reason that this Government has bitten the bullet and introduced the sorts of changes it has made to the retirement scheme. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.22) —I thank the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for the additional information he has given and for the promise of further information soon when the new scheme has been in operation for a while. I note that he said that further information will be provided to the Senate. I gather it will be provided during this session , that is, before the end of this year. Senator Grimes —If I get it. Senator CHANEY —I understand it will be provided if those figures are available. I think it would be of great interest to the Senate and indeed to the Australian public to know just how these figures fall out as against the estimates which, I agree, are difficult to make because of the lack of information we have about the asset position of many Australians. I think that the Minister has been a little kind to himself in his summary. I want to make some comment on the Minister's remarks about the introduction of these three new imposts or tests into the system-the restriction of the over-70s income test free pension, the new means test on pensions and the 30 per cent tax on superannuation. The Minister referred to them as part of an overall plan. He claimed to be living up to the sort of suggestion that I was making in my comments. I think he is patting himself on the back a little unnecessarily. I think there is a degree of illogicality in that combination of measures. Senator Grimes —No one else will pat me on the back. Senator CHANEY —I note that the Minister said that no one else will; I agree with that. The fact is that there is a lack of coherence in those measures which does cause the Opposition and, I think, a lot of people who are worried about retirement incomes some concern. I go back to the May package to which the Minister referred-I think I can properly describe it as the contentious measure- namely, the introduction of a much higher level of tax on lump sum payments. I understood at that time that this was because the Government was concerned with a problem which is broadly described as double dipping. The Government was saying: 'You are getting a tax assisted advantage through your lump sum and you are able to invest that in a way which does not attract the operation of the income test. It is really important that, in order to stop people getting two bites at the cherry, two serves from the taxpayer, we should introduce this tax on lump sum superannuation payments'. Of course the imposition of a means test does cover that point. If one does it in a logical, coherent, thought out way, it does seem rather difficult to see why on the one hand one would introduce a tax on lump sum superannuation, which is meant to avoid double dipping, and then some months later introduce a means test which means that any lump sum would be taken into account in determining whether or not one would receive a pension and , if so, how much. In response to the Minister I want to say that part of the concern of the Opposition is that there is not a sense of coherence in those three measures, each one of which can perhaps be justified in an argument about its standing by itself on the basis that the Minister has put before the Committee tonight. Yet when one puts them together one finds a lack of logic in the way they fit. I have to say-I think I speak very much on behalf of all Opposition members on this matter-that we would want to see a much more successful attempt than the Government has made so far to introduce a logical and coherent approach in this area. If one looks at what the Government said when it was in opposition as against what it is saying now, and if one even looks at what Senator Button is saying now against what the Government is doing, one sees that the means test has been introduced for the aged. That effectively is a form of tax. We have all agreed that the question of tax and the withdrawal of grants from social security through the income test are things which need to be considered together. The fact is that the Government has seen fit to introduce a means test on the aged. It has not seen fit to introduce a capital gains tax on the non-aged. Again I think this suggests that the Government lacks a logical and coherent approach in these areas. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Minister to respond to my general comment that all of this needs to be dealt with in a full way by saying: 'Look what we have done. We have taken these three measures'. I think that even Senator Button, within the privacy of Caucus and the Cabinet and in the near privacy that we enjoy in this chamber, which seems to attract less attention than the other chamber, would argue that a capital gains tax represents a logical part of any package where one is looking to the capital assets of the aged and where one is looking to the general income security situation of the whole community. Senator Button —No worries about that. Senator CHANEY —I am glad to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, saying 'No worries about that'. It is consistent with what he said to us at Question Time. I think it does point up the lack of a coherent and logical approach by this Government in that it is prepared to look at the capital of the aged but not at the capital of the rest of the community. I am also very concerned about something that the Minister, Senator Grimes, said. He said that one does not go around talking about these things. One of the things that this Government talked about a great deal before the last election was that it would consult more in formulating and implementing its policies. Let us look at what the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, is doing. He is being terribly careful before he imposes a new tax on the mining industry. He is issuing discussion papers-he has even made them available to the Opposition-and he is talking to the mining industry. He said publicly in this place that he feels that it would be a good thing if everybody had a chance to contribute to a successful outcome. I say to the Minister for Social Security: 'If it is good enough to have a new resources tax for the mining industry I would have thought it is good enough to have the same sort of consultation with the aged of Australia through their many representative organisations'. This is a case of the Government simply not living up to its rhetoric concerning the aged. It is certainly not consulting before it chooses to move, whereas in other areas, including other areas of taxation, it seems to see its way clear to do so. I add a couple of questions to those that I have asked already about the actual financial benefits which supposedly will flow from these measures. What procedures has the Minister maintained, if any, within his Department to comply with what I understand to be the general policy of the Government to have a high degree of consultation with those people who are affected? I do not know whether he has maintained the State and Commonwealth consultative mechanisms, and it would be helpful if he were to tell the Committee what formal consultative arrangements he maintains to ensure that people in the community, particularly those who are affected, have an opportunity to contribute to policy making in this very important area. I would be interested also to know specifically the extent to which the Minister has involved himself directly in that consultation process. I am sure that the present Minister, like any Minister for Social Security, has endless requests for meetings and I am sure that he attends many meetings; but he would know, I think, that I am interested in the formal consultative arrangements which enable the representatives of the aged, in particular, to ensure that their views are well known to him and to the Department before important decisions of the sort which the Government has been taking, decisions which seem to have shaken at least part of the aged community in Australia, are made. I suppose that we would all like to know to what extent the aged have been enabled to consult with his Government through their organisations and through the mechanisms which were in place previously. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.31) —I shall deal first with what Senator Chaney described as the logic of the situation. He described the introduction of the changes to lump sum superannuation and the assets test for the over-70s as apparently illogical. In passing, I refer to the Opposition's attitude. The first thing that happened was that in May we announced our intention of introducing the changed treatment of the lump sum superannuation payment. What was the Opposition's attitude? The Opposition immediately opposed it. It said it was 'an outrageous imposition' on those who were at that time getting tax concessions of some $2,600m from the public taxpayers. It also said: 'Under no circumstances should this ever be introduced and on returning to government-- Senator Messner —You are over-acting. Senator GRIMES —No. I am talking about Senator Messner and his leader. The Opposition said that on returning to government it would immediately repeal the legislation, legislation which at that stage it had never seen. The next thing that happened was that we introduced an over-70s means test, an income test which is much more generous than the income test for those aged between 65 and 70. The previous Government's approach was immediately to freeze the over-70s pension and to impose a means test on increases without any consultation with any pensioner groups. Despite the fact that the Opposition said that it would not do this, when in government it introduced that measure in a Budget. We introduced such a measure in May, and immediately the Opposition's reply was: 'This is outrageous. This should never have been done. It is a terrible thing to do. We will not have a bar of it. We will oppose it'. When it came to the Parliament, the Opposition opposed it. Along came the intention to introduce an assets test, the Opposition's attitude was: 'We will oppose it and, on returning to government, we shall repeal it'. Senator Chaney talked about logic. One has great difficulty in finding any logic in the Opposition's attitude apart from the logic which states: 'We are in opposition; therefore we must oppose everything that the Government does'. The superannuation changes were introduced in May because, as was well known in this community, 40 per cent of the work force had access to superannuation, and of those 40 per cent, 60 per cent received lump sum superannuation payments, and the percentage was increasing. Taxation was applicable to only 5 per cent of that lump sum superannuation. That was clearly an unfair taxation system when one considered that the people concerned could then put that lump sum into a contrived scheme and so manipulate it as to get the full pension and full fringe benefits, whereas those who were receiving weekly superannuation payments, the other 40 per cent of those who had access to superannuation, had those payments included in the income test and therefore they were completely taxable. That was clearly an unfair situation. That group of people had a great advantage over the rest of the community. As part of that advantage they were able to double dip, as Senator Chaney says. Of course, the people who had the capacity to double dip were not only those receiving lump sum superannuation payments. They were people who through all sorts of other methods had large asset holdings which they were able to manipulate in contrived schemes to avoid the income test. Advertisements appeared from Australian Fixed Trusts Ltd and so on saying: 'Put your assets into our trust. Even though you are a millionaire you will be able to get a full pension and a full fringe benefit'. The advertisements were as blatant as that. Quite clearly we knew that at the time and we said that this was a correction of an unfair taxation system and that as a side effect it eliminated the advantage of some people double dipping. However, to stop double dipping completely we had to introduce an assets test. In introducing the more generous income test for the over-70s we were facing up to the reality that large numbers of people-$170m -worth of people-were receiving some $51.40 a week which could well have gone elsewhere. That is a comprehensive policy, and it is part of a comprehensive policy which will continue. What is not logical is for the Opposition to come into this chamber and every time something is announced say, without giving any alternative: 'We will oppose it; we will repeal it'. There is no logic in that sort of situation and there was no logic in it. As for the consultation methods, I will try to remember them all for Senator Chaney. As Senator Chaney knows, there are various State consultative committees on social security. They are retained. The re-appointments and the new appointments will be announced in the next few weeks. We will retain the National Consultative Committee on Social Welfare. It will have a different composition from the one which Senator Chaney appointed, but it will remain and it will be broadly representative of people in the community. We have the Disability Advisory Council of Australia, which replaced the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped, the difference being that it is now largely composed of disabled people. It has met regularly; it is working very efficiently. We have had a series of consultations, one with the various consultative committees on the best method of setting up communications between them and the Department, and one on children's services. Specifically in regard to the assets test, I have met with State pensioner organisations in, I think, every State except Queensland. Senator Teague —Since the Budget? Senator GRIMES —Yes. I have met with the Australian Pensioners Federation. I have met with the retired superannuees. I have met with the Australian Council on the Ageing, both the national body and the New South Wales body, and have had regular consultations with them. The Australian Council for the Ageing, which in fact is in favour of the introduction of the assets test, has established a committee which will look at what it considers to be anomalies in the assets test and will consult with government, both before and after the legislation is introduced. In the Budget we announced our intention to introduce the assets test and we announced that we were going to consult with the pensioner organisations between that time and the time the legislation was introduced. We also informed people, and this is obvious to everyone, that for a year after the assets test is introduced there will be a further period for consultation. I believe that the consultations and discussions we have had, including a meeting I had in the Sydney Town Hall which followed the one Senator Chaney had the year before and the one Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle had a couple of years before that, are important in formulating- Senator Chaney —Show us your scars. Senator GRIMES —Oh, it is good stuff. They are important in formulating policy and in being able to discuss policy. In fact, we have had discussions with these various organisations and will continue to enter into such discussions for the next 12 months after the legislation comes in. We have done so since the Budget. I do not know of any occasion when the previous Government proceeded along that path. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —We did not do what you have done. Senator GRIMES —The difficulty, senator, is that if we did what the Fraser Government did and marched into the Parliament and said 'Boom! We are introducing this' we would get continuous complaints about the fact that we had not consulted and that no one knew it was going to happen, et cetera. If we did what we did and announced that we intended to do this but intended to refine it in consultation with the various groups, we would get complaints from the Opposition that we were causing confusion and spending too much time talking. I know that we cannot win in this situation, but at least I know that, in discussing with the various pensioner organisations and with the various ex- servicemen's organisations-Senator Messner will be surprised when he sees some of the responses we got from them-we reached a situation of mutual understanding . I said in this place: 'We are willing to discuss with anyone, political parties or anyone else, the sorts of difficulties and problems that may arise and the anomalies that they think may arise. We intend to introduce an assets test, but we are willing to discuss the details and difficulties that may arise'. As far as I am concerned, the only two groups that have not been willing to make a contribution, apart from narking and nitpicking, have been the Liberal Party of Australian and the National Party of Australia. I think that is a great pity. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.42) —I wish to address myself to the last remarks of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). He said that there had been no contribution from the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia. That is obvious nonsense. There has been a great deal of consultation in this place, in the place where these debates should be held and where the issues can be exposed for public view. It is pretty obvious that the Minister has no intention of letting these issues come out in public. For the very reason that I enunciated before, he will not release important documents that were the basis of his decision. The reason is clearly that they are contradictory. They do not show clearly to him or to the rest of the people of Australia what this Government's intention was when it first sat down to talk about retirement policy back in May. He knows that those reports will not support the actions taken since 19 May, or before for that matter. I make one point in respect of that matter because the Minister made some play of the fact that indeed it is not for a government to go around and parade itself and talk aloud in the public arena about what it intends to do. That seems to be remarkably contradictory of previous discussions. He also made the point that probably back in March, or as early as a few days after the date on which the Government was elected, the Australian Labor Party Government had been discussing this issue. He said that it has been accepting things; rejecting things and trying to make up its mind what it would do. What it ended up doing was causing enormous confusion to the people of Australia. The point about this matter is that he said it was nonsense that the issue should have been considered in those early days and that the Government should have had time to consider all these things. He said: 'Well, you know, we as ordinary Australians ought not to concern ourselves so long as the Government does not say something'. The people of Australia on 14 April were led to believe by a firm statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation payments. That was on 14 April, a few days before the National Economic Summit Conference. Yet on 19 May the mini-Budget came down. Senator Georges —What line are you on? Senator MESSNER —If Senator Georges wants to see the headlines, I will bring them in so that he can see them. The point about this matter is quite clearly that the word of the Government cannot be relied upon. We need this basic information so that we can clear up once and for all the matter of the Government's intentions. The real point is this: Throughout all the nonsense that has been going on in this area since the middle of May, we have yet to find out what the Government's real long term purposes are. It talks about a national superannuation scheme as being its objective. When has the Minister informed us in this place about the Government's intentions in that regard? Does it intend to introduce a national superannuation scheme next year? Can we have an answer to that question? Does it intend to introduce such a measure in a mini-Budget half-way through the current financial year? Can we have an answer to that question? When does it intend to introduce a national superannuation scheme? I make that point because it is important to recognise that this Government has sought in its own mind to make plain to the people of Australia that such measures are part of some grand plan for the introduction of an all-encompassing superannuation scheme. Yet as my colleague Senator Chaney has pointed out, the moves that have been made so far are full of contradictions. We instanced the introduction of the tax on lump sums, followed by an assets test which is achieving the same purpose, which is designed to cut out double dipping, which the Minister claimed was the objective of that legislation. It obviously created more anomalies in the process. I ask the Minister whether he really sits down in the quiet of his own room at night-preferably with the light off, so that he does not need to look in a mirror-and thinks about this matter, thinks about the confusion that he is creating in Australia amongst the people who are really concerned about pensions . It is pretty clear that the Minister is one of those people who really do not have control of the situation. He claims that he is on the way to achieving a long term goal with regard to national superannuation. I want to see what that goal is, and so do the rest of the people of Australia. We want to know when it will be introduced and what the Government's long term policy is in that regard. Let us look at one or two other points. The Minister made great play of the fact that the former Government had considered, in the course of its period in office, the introduction of an assets test. My colleague Senator Chaney, the former Minister, made the point quite clear that the former Government had never considered in Cabinet the introduction of an assets test. That surely makes the point. The reason is, of course, that all of the issues that have been raised through the departmental and advisory processes within the Department and outside of it, clearly did not hold water. The matter reached short of ministerial level, and remained without the imprimatur of the Government. Why is it that this Government sees some virtue in something that would not have gained the support of the Department of Social Security under the former Government? We need to know the answer to that question. Again, I draw the Minister's attention to the point that he could really put our minds at rest about this question by releasing the information that I asked for earlier, releasing the reports on superannuation, which he absolutely and steadfastly refuses to do-for what reason, one cannot say. He told us that the papers are full of options that the Government may or may not have considered. If that is the case, why can he not bring us into his confidence? Why cannot the Parliament be made aware of these issues? He knows that a Senate committee has been established to examine these very important issues. Is he waiting-I give him the benefit of the doubt on this point-so that he can surprise us all be giving these reports to the Committee so that we can undertake an examination of them, or is he just determined on his course of being steadfastly opposed to releasing any information at all? It does not sit well that the Minister who, when in opposition, sought to make his position clear about freedom of information, refuses to release this kind of information. I ask the Minister once again whether he will do so. Several other points need to be brought out in the course of this debate. Several issues in this area have not yet been touched upon. I ask again how the Government intends to address itself to the assets test when it is applied to various assets that vary in value from time to time. The Minister sought to reply to us earlier in respect of the value of shares that are held at some particular time. He told us how they were to be valued, but he failed to tell us what effect they would have on the assets and the capital of pensioners if they had an average yield of 3 or 4 per cent but a return of the order of 10 per cent , the figure to be taken into account for the purposes of the assets test. Why is this? What impact will this have on people receiving pensions? Will they be entitled to receive more income by way of a pension, rather than less, as would be the Minister's intention? In fact, will it not also have the reverse effect if people have money invested at, for example, 15 per cent on mortgage, something far in excess of the 10 per cent notional rate? As a result of the Minister's assets test those people would in fact be drawing more in pension. Do not both those examples indicate that there would be an increased drawing of pensions as the result of the application of the assets test? How can the Minister tell us that the assets test is aimed at assisting the most needy when it will obviously assist those who have their assets invested in such a way as, in the second case, to maximise their return and, in the first case, to maximise their potential for hedging against inflation affecting their future retirement income? I ask that question in the light of the answer of the Minister to other questions that have been addressed to him on this matter. How can he demonstrate to us that there will be a saving to revenue as a result of the imposition of the assets test? Surely those factors mean that there will be an increase in the outlays for pensions for people in those categories. I fail to see how the net effect will reduce outlays and ensure, in such a way as the Minister deems important, that the maximum amount of funds reaches the hands of the most needy, which is claimed to be the objective of this Government. If that is so, I would like to hear the Minister's response. I would like to hear a quantification of the amount of money that is expected to be saved in pension payments as a result of the implementation of this measure. Indeed, I would like to hear how it will be used to assist the most needy in the community. I return to the original point, that is, that the Minister can put our minds at rest by releasing the documents to which he has referred-those documents dealing with this particular decision-making process of the Government, a most convoluted process, as the Minister will acknowledge. The decision was obviously taken in the heat of the moment without full consideration of all the issues. It was taken in such a way as to clearly indicate the Government's real intention in this area. Finally, I ask the Minister when he proposes to introduce his national superannuation scheme. Senator GRIMES —(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) (10.55)-I have answered some of these questions many times, but I will answer them again. I was shadow Minister for Social Security from 1976. In that time initially I had a staff of one and in the last couple of years, because I was also Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I had a staff of three. In that time we worked very hard to draw up a comprehensive policy on social security. We worked very hard to get to know the social security system. In that time I would have loved to have had made available to me Cabinet documents which were made available to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Chaney. I even would have liked to have had made available to me the reports put out by committees such as those of Mr Spender- although I must admit I did get his report in the end when it fell off the back of a truck-Mr Sainsbury and Mr Hodges. All these committees were not Cabinet committees; they were committees set up by Senator Chaney to assist him in his policy development. I dare say that when Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was the Minister for Social Security there would have been departmental committees and Cabinet committees and all sorts of people who assisted the Government in the development of policy and who gave advice to the Government when it sought information in regard to various matters. In this time I suppose I occasionally did say in Question Time and in Estimates committees hearings: 'How about letting us have these committee reports?' The answer was always no, that they were Cabinet documents or they were working documents for the Minister. Now poor Senator Messner comes along as the shadow Minister for Social Security, having been a supporter of the previous Government for many years and a Minister for a couple of years, knowing how the whole system works, having reaped all this vast knowledge that was available to him from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, which is quite related to the Department of Social Security, having had sitting next to him and sitting in front of him former experienced and well known Ministers for Social Security. He comes into this place and says first of all: ' We have no comprehensive retirement policy. We are going to develop one over the next few months'. Then he comes in and says: 'Look, to assist me to develop this policy I want all your Cabinet documents, I want all your working documents and I want all the advice that you as a Government and the Cabinet have received'. All I can say is that I admire the honourable senator's cheek. I am willing to answer questions in this place. I am willing to debate the matter here and in public. I am willing to go to the Sydney Town Hall and to everywhere else to have it out with various groups. But, for heaven's sake, for Senator Messner to come in here and say: 'We want to develop a good policy which we could not develop over the previous seven years and you have to help us by giving us all these documents and everything else which you have used in your Cabinet discussions', is just a bit too cheeky even for honourable senators on that side of the chamber. The second thing I wish to say is that we have been discussing for I do not know how long the Appropriation Bills and the estimates examined by Estimates Committee B. Senator Walters has been sitting up there, alternatively champing at the bit and falling asleep, waiting to ask all those questions she has wanted to ask. Essentially, all we have discussed is my refusal to give up Cabinet documents. We have had a bit of philosophical discussion between Senator Chaney and me on where social security should go in the future. The rest of the debate has involved Senator Messner on the assets test, on which we have announced our intent. No legislation has come before the Parliament. The only thing in relation to these tests in these Appropriation Bills is an estimate of the number of people who may be needed if we can get the legislation through to administer the test. Yet Senator Messner gets up here and wants to know details of a test which we have been happily discussing with various pensioner groups. We have been sitting down and formulating policy with all those advisory groups that Senator Messner would like to talk to, groups whose documents Senator Messner would like to get his hands on. We have been discussing the matter with the intention of bringing legislation into this Parliament to apply that assets test so that we can have a full and proper debate. Not only that, I have often to listen to the views of the Opposition-- Senator Primmer —They have not got any. Senator GRIMES —The Opposition does not have any positive views. The only view it has is: We are against the asset test and when we get into government in the far distant future we will repeal the legislation that this Governmen brings in, whatever it is. Is it not about time that we got on to dealing with this year's Budget? Is it not about time that we got on to dealing with appropriations which are covered in these documents? Is it not about time that we got away from the narking, the nitpicking and the nonsense Senator Messner is going on about? Is it not about time that Senator Messner went away and became a shadow Minister for Social Security, that he started to dream up some policies and started to get some idea of where his Party in the near future, whenever it is, may go? I inform Senator Messner that we intend to introduce a national superannuation scheme. I have had discussions, as I should, not only in government but also in opposition, with the insurance industry. This community by and large agrees with the introduction of the assets test and the changes to the superannuation and taxation system. I have been discussing with various pensioner groups, I have been discussing with various superannuation groups the introduction of a superannuation scheme, as has my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), and as have others. When we have finished our discussions we will introduce the legislation. Consideration interrupted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) — Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I formally put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- Proposed National Women's Conference The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.00) —I want to raise a matter that I raised on 21 October. It relates to the women's meeting to be held on 7 November. On the occasion I raised the matter previously I put down a number of questions relating to this conference and at the time the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) incorporated a list of participating organisations , which I have now had an opportunity to look at. I included some other questions which have not yet been answered and I have written to Senator Button about them. I think they are matters that really ought to be answered if this meeting that women's organisations are to attend is to be of significance. If it is to be the forerunner of something that replaces the National Women's Advisory Council, I think that more publicity ought to be given to it and women generally ought to have the opportunity to know about it. I asked on that occasion how many delegates would be allowed from each of these groups, how many observers would be allowed and where they might come from, whether or not the list was thought to be representative of women's organisations, whether women affiliated with political parties were to be included, and I asked particularly about the agenda-has it been made public, can it be made public tonight and who has had an opportunity to contribute to the items which will be included on the agenda? I am surprised on reading through the list of participating organisations to see that it includes the National Women's Advisory Council, which in fact was abolished by the Government The reason given for holding this conference of 30 women's organisations in November was that it would replace the National Women's Advisory Council. That, in itself , seems very strange as far as I am concerned and it makes me wonder whether this meeting is merely a patronising gimmick or whether it is a serious endeavour to find out the views of women in the community. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) wrote to the Chairman of the Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia earlier this year. The main part of the letter relates to pre-Budget discussions and explains why they were not being held this year and the purpose of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It then goes on to state: In addition to these formal arrangements, the Government intends that informal consultation, including on a bilateral basis, will be greatly increased. The Prime Minister has committed all Ministers to be available to consult with, and to receive representations from, individuals and groups in the community on matters of common interest irrespective of industrial, political or social affiliation. This is a genuine undertaking on behalf of a government which is keen to receive the benefit of the reserves of knowledge and experience of the community at large, and to be of assistance to groups and individuals to the greatest extent possible. I trust that in the days, weeks, months and years ahead that your organisation will take advantage of that unequivocal offer and statement, and continue to maintain your contact with the Government. I hope I am not being cynical when I suggest that those words sound a little hollow in view of the fact that that organisation has not been included. One can think of other groups that are not included on the list. As I have said, one organisation has now been abolished. I think it is time the Government told us what is going on. It should publish the agenda, let us know where the meeting is to be held and answer some of the matters I have raised because if it is of importance, if it is worth spending taxpayers' money to hold the meeting, these things need to be addressed. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.05) —I can respond to some of the specific questions which Senator Reid has asked. The meeting will be held in Parliament House. I am not aware of whether an agenda has been prepared. I will make inquiries about that and inform the Senate and/or Senator Reid as soon as possible. The National Women's Advisory Council will continue for a period of 12 months or thereabouts. This matter was raised by Senator Reid in the adjournment debate on Friday, 21 October. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, responded and had incorporated in Hansard a list of women's organisations. I seek leave to incorporate the same list of women's organisations which was incorporated by Senator Button on 21 October 1983. Leave granted. The list read as follows- PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS National Council of Women of Australia United Nations Association of Australia Country Women's Association Business and Professional Women's Association YWCA Union of Australian Women Federation of University Women National Association of Community Childcare Women's Electoral Lobby Women's International League of Peace and Freedom ACTU Women's Committee Federation of Aboriginal Women Women and Development Network Australian Women's Education Coalition National Aboriginal Conference Catholic Women's League Australian Council of Churches Commission on the Status of Women Australian Federation of Family Planning Associations Working Women's Centre National Council for Single Mother and her Child National Council of Jewish Women NSW Women's Advisory Council Victorian Women's Advisory Council RAF Women's Association Army Wives Association Australian Pensioners Association War Widows Association Disabled People's International Disability Resource Centre Beryl Women's Refuge National Women's Advisory Council WA Women's Advisory Council The emphases has been on inviting a broad spectrum of national women's organisations to attend the meeting. In addition to the list of participants which was incorporated in Hansard on 21 October, which has just been incorporated again today, representatives of State governments and migrant and Aboriginal women will attend. The major purpose of the meeting is to discuss a means of establishing effective and ongoing consultation between the Government and Australian women. Finally, I repeat that I will follow up the question of an agenda and endeavour to obtain a reply for Senator Reid as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.07 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Electoral Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 236, 237 and 238 and 239. Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 233. Defence Act- Determinations 1983- No. 18-Separation Allowance and others. No. 19-Settling In and Settling Out Allowance and another. No. 20-Higher Duties Allowance and others. No. 21-Flying Allowance and others. No. 22-Service Allowance. No. 23-Recreation Leave and another. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 245. Health Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 230 and 231. Family Law Act-regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 243. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 232. Life Insurance Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 240. Migration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 244. Seamen's Compensation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 234. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances 1983-No. 52-Mental Health. Notice of Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs, dated 2 November 1983. Telecommunications Act-By-Laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 39. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 39. Trade Practices Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 241. Wireless Telegraphy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 299 and 242. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 280 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is the United States stepping up production of plutonium for military use as was reported in the 29 June 1983 edition of Wise. (2) Is the United States looking at a plan to re-establish an agreement with Great Britain to trade tritium and highly enriched uranium for Britain's Polaris warheads and nuclear submarine fleet in exchange for plutonium from British Magnox reactors. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government is not aware of United States' plans in respect of production of plutonium for military use. (2) Under the United States/United Kingdom Defence Agreement, plutonium from United Kingdom civil reactors was exported to the United States before 1971 in exchange for highly enriched uranium for the United Kingdom defence program. The United States Government has stated that the plutonium was used for civil purposes only. The United Kingdom Government has stated that there have been no subsequent transfers of United Kingdom civil plutonium to the United States under the Agreement. The Australian Government is not aware of any proposal of the kind mentioned, which would be inconsistent with the declared policy of the United Kingdom Government. Question No. 328 Senator Primmer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 September 1983: (1) Are there adequate provisions in the Freedom of Information Act, or other legislation, to deal with witnesses who conceal the existence of documents subject to a Freedom of Information application from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT); if so, what are these existing provisions; if not, will the Attorney-General consider including appropriate provisions in the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill to be considered during the current session. (2) Will the Attorney-General provide an assurance that prompt and effective action would be taken, in accordance with the pertinent legislation, on any concealment of documents from the AAT by any person or persons concerned. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Freedom of Information Act 1982 and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 together contain adequate provisions to deal with any case of improper document concealment that comes to light in review proceedings. Under the AAT Act, a duty is imposed on the person whose decision is to be reviewed to lodge with the AAT every document in his or her possession or control which that person considers relevant to the review (section 37 (1) (b)). The AAT may require any other document it considers may be relevant to be produced (section 37 (2); section 40 (1A)), and any person who fails to do so commits an offence (section 62 (c)). Further, any witness who gives evidence about the existence or whereabouts of a document that to his or her knowledge is false or misleading also commits an offence (section 62A). The FOI Act (section 64 (1) and (3)) expressly modifies the AAT Act with respect to the production of documents claimed to be exempt or in respect of which a 'conclusive certificate' is in force. These provisions do not limit the capacity of the AAT or the Document Review Tribunal (DRT) in proceedings under the FOI Act effectively to deal with improper document concealment. Even in respect of an exempt document or a document in respect of which a 'conclusive certificate' has been given, there is a reserve power in the AAT or the DRT (as the case may be) to require the document to be produced for inspection by the Tribunal. It should however be noted that the FOI Act expressly authorises a Minister or agency to withhold information about the existence of a document in certain circumstances. Section 25 of the FOI Act- (a) provides that nothing in the Act requires information to be given as to the existence or non-existence of a document if that information would prejudice defence, security or international relations, or would adversely affect certain law enforcement functions; and (b) permits an agency to respond to a request under the FOI Act by notifying the applicant that the existence of a document is neither confirmed nor denied in such a case. (2) As indicated in (1), adequate machinery exists to deal with improper concealment. Whether or not proceedings in respect of an improper concealment of a document are brought in a particular case depends on the sufficiency of evidence and whether in all the circumstances of the case, prosecution is appropriate. Disciplinary action might also be taken against any officer found to have concealed relevant documents (see, for example, Division 6, Part III, Public Service Act 1922). In recent proceedings before the AAT, the President of the Tribunal has said that any agency which is in doubt whether a document is within the ambit of a request should alert the Tribunal to the existence of the document. My Department is preparing a memorandum to all agencies to draw their attention to the President's remarks. Question No. 414 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 6 October 1983: (1) How will the royalties from the Jabiru oil well in the Timor Sea be distributed. (2) Will the Northern Territory receive any royalties; if so, what percentage of the profits will the Territory receive, and under what formula; if no royalties are allocated to the Northern Territory, will it receive any other financial return from the oil find. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) All royalties on petroleum production in the Adjacent Area of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands, within which the Jabiru discovery has been made, will be retained by the Commonwealth-as provided for in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. (2) The Northern Territory will not receive royalties from any petroleum production in the area. However, significant economic benefits are expected to accrue to the Northern Territory from the establishment of an operations base for the Jabiru development and related service industries. Senator Button —On 8 September 1983 (Hansard, page 524) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question without notice concerning the decline in employment and labour force participation indicated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) labour force survey for August. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following additional information relating to the honourable senator's question: The ABS labour force statistics are subject to quite large seasonal variations, and August is a month in which employment normally falls by 30,000-40,000 and the participation rate by around 0.4 per cent. If seasonally adjusted figures are used-as they should be when interpreting short term movements in employment- the apparent decline is not 52,000 but rather 19,500. The statistician also warns in the relevant publications that allowance should be made for sampling error in interpreting the figures. On this basis, the fall is not statistically significant using the accepted statistical test at the 95 per cent confidence level. Reflecting these considerations, too much emphasis should not be placed on the decrease in employment in August, particularly following the strong gains of the preceding three months. This view is supported by the strong growth in seasonally adjusted employment which occurred in September, to the highest level since November 1982. The seasonally adjusted participation rate also decreased in August by 0.3 percentage points to 60.3 per cent. This decrease was statistically significant, although it was difficult to interpret given the signs of stability in other labour market indicators. The decline was expected to be reversed as employment gathered strength-an interpretation supported by the large increase in the seasonally adjusted participation rate in September. The Government has made a commitment to increasing employment in 1983-84 and the Budget was framed with this objective in mind. The impact of our policies are now being reflected in employment levels, which have risen in seasonally adjusted terms in four of the last five months.