Tuesday, 29 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) left Australia on 11 May to visit London, Europe and the Soviet Union for high level foreign policy discussions and to attend an Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development ministerial council meeting in Paris. The Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) is acting as Foreign Minister. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia on 12 May to attend a conference in Seoul on participation of developing countries in the international trading system. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) is Acting Minister for Primary Industry until Mr Kerin returns. I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) left Australia on 11 May to attend a meeting in Oslo of the European Conference of Ministers for Transport and the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is Acting Minister for Transport until Mr Morris returns. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Funding for Technical and Further Education Colleges To the Honourable the President and Members of, the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE Teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jack Evans (from 46 citizens) and Zakharov (from 598 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in associated with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 20 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 689 citizens), Harradine (from 2,573 citizens), Maguire (from 48 citizens), Reid (from 751 citizens), Robertson (from 55 citizens), Walters (from 538 citizens) and Watson (from 318 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and, 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or wait the outcome of the Senate Standing, Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 109 citizens), Messner (from 395 citizens) and Withers (from 59 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 members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight his Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 13 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 all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachments of the 1939-45 war. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Georges (from 34 citizens) and Zakharov (from 22 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 in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territory or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 24 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 47 citizens) and Reid (from 54 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementory to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Senator Zakharov (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 110 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 we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly expresses our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to almighty God and the Lord's prayer: We also call on the Parliament assembled to reaffirm our genuine loyalty to our head of State. The Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II. 'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that ABC radio transmission from 4QA Mackay is antiquated and operates on transmitters installed in 1947-48 to service a region in which the area and population has doubled in the intervening 36 years, the signal from 4QA is below strength so that station 4QN at Townsville has a far better signal strength into the Mackay hinterland than 4QA, a distance of only 70 km from Mackay and over 300 km from Townsville, the 4QN news programmes are of no interest in the Mackay region and in emergency situations such as cyclones, the 4QA frequency has limited penetration within the region, that while FM programmes are available in Rockhampton and Townsville, Mackay, with a regional population of 100,000 people, has been by-passed when towns of smaller size have the advantages of FM radio. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government and the Department of Communications will move urgently to rectify both these anomalies. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 13 citizens). Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I seek leave to present certain petitions. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS-The petitions are similar in wording, so I will read only one of them. They were signed in a rather unorthodox fashion. The petition reads: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. Senator Gareth Evans-I raise a point of order, Mr President. Could we be informed whether Senator Walters is reading her petition in this form because of some technical defect for which it is the normal practice to seek leave or is reading it in order to get the particular proposition into the record, which, I submit, if not a technical breach of Standing Orders or procedures, is certainly a breach of the spirit that we have accepted in this place? Senator WALTERS-It is a technical defect. The PRESIDENT-Senator Walters has been given leave to present it. Senator WALTERS-I will start again. The petition reads: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. It has one signature only, Mrs J. S. Adams, Deputy President-- Government senators interjecting-- Senator WALTERS-Be patient. The PRESIDENT-Order! The honourable senator has been given leave to present a petition. The honourable senator has presented the petition. Senator WALTERS-It is signed by the State President of the South Australian Country Women's Association. The PRESIDENT-Order! The honourable senator is out of order. Senator WALTERS-Could I explain? Otherwise the Senate will be-- The PRESIDENT-Order! The honourable senator sought leave to present a petition. That petition has now been presented. If the honourable senator wishes to do something further, she will have to seek leave of the Senate to do that. Senator WALTERS-Mr President, I seek leave to explain why technically it is not correct. Leave not granted. Petitions received. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent upon the Chairman of Estimates Committee D presenting the report from the Committee on the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Baume from moving-That the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984 contained in divisions 270 to 284 for the Department of Education and Youth Affairs be recommitted to Estimates Committee D for consideration and report to the Senate on or before Friday, 1 June 1984. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, if the Senate amends any Bill which originated in the House of Representatives, after that House has adjourned for the winter adjournment, the President be directed to request the Speaker of the House of Representatives to recall that House in order to consider such Bill or Bills and any amendments made by the Senate. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition ( Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition ( Foreign States) Act 1966. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows: 1. Remuneration Tribunal-Reports and Determinations April 1984-Pursuant to Section 7 of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. 2. Certain Nitrogenous Fertilizers (Anti-dumping)-IAC Report. 3. Homelessness-A Capital Problem-report of a Committee of Inquiry into Homelessness and Inadequate Housing in the ACT and Surrounding Regions. 4. Task Force on Implementation of ACT Self Government-Publication-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Territories and Local Government Relating to the Publication, made in the House of Representatives on 10 May 1984. 5. Government Commitment to Continuation of Reforms for Williamstown Naval Dockyard-Document-Together with the text of a statement relating to the document . 6. Australian Water Resources Council Activities-1982-83-Together with minutes of the Twenty-fifth Meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council Meeting held in Canberra 1 July 1983. 7. Auditor-General's Report on the Joint Coal Board Annual Report for 1982-83 ( The Joint Coal Board Annual Report for 1982-83 was tabled on 15 December 1983)- Pursuant to Section 26 of the Coal Industry Act 1946. 8. Metropolitan Adelaide and Northern Towns Water Filtration Programs-Documents -Pursuant to Section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978. 9. Eighth Report on the Operation of the Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982-Statement by the Leader of the Government in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 16 December 1982. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of my distinguished predecessor, Sir Harold Young. On behalf of all members of the Senate, I extend to Sir Harold Young a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that the joint committee of the Departments of Social Security and Veterans' Affairs has estimated that the assets test proposal favoured by the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel would hit 50,000 pensioners but bring in only $ 80m? Is it also a fact that the start-up costs of the proposals were estimated by the departments at about $80m, with substantial continuing operational costs? In the light of these figures, will the Government now scrap the assets test? If it will not, will it promise that all gross income from the test will be used immediately to increase pensions? Senator GRIMES —The matters raised by Senator Messner are at present part of the Government's consideration of the Gruen report. Discussions are still taking place between my Department and the Department of Veterans' Affairs as to the implications of the various options in the Gruen report. The results of those discussions will be part of the Government's response to the report when it is produced in the Parliament later this week. As to the second part of Senator Messner's question, one of the aims of any assets test is to save unnecessary expenditure in the area of pensions and to use those moneys saved on high priority areas of welfare. That was one of the aims and one of the intentions of introducing such a test, and it remains the aim of the Government in doing so. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has deliberately avoided the point of the question which was a very narrow one and certainly does not require anything but information. The PRESIDENT —Will the honourable senator ask his supplementary question? Senator MESSNER —The supplementary question is: Will the Minister please confirm that the amount to be obtained by the application of the Gruen Panel's suggestion is $80m and that the cost of establishment of the assets test is $80m ? Senator GRIMES —I thought I made myself perfectly clear. I will neither confirm nor deny any such proposal. The question arises from a report in a newspaper. As I have said, discussions are still going on between officers of my Department and the Department of Veterans' Affairs as to the costs of administration of and the savings which would be raised from one of the various options in the Gruen report. The appropriate time to report that to the Parliament is when we produce the report and the Government's response. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has had questions addressed to him which are simple and which relate to matters of fact. The Minister has been asked what the cost of certain tests would be, and what the savings would be. They are simple matters of fact. The Minister has sought to avoid answering the question by saying that these are part of the Government' s consideration of this matter. If that sort of answer is accepted from the Minister, it reduces Question Time to a farce. The shadow Minister for Social Security has asked for clarifications of a couple of matters of fact which are being noised abroad, which are part of the public debate and which are of very considerable concern to the community. I suggest, Mr President, that you direct the Minister to answer the question. Senator Grimes —On the point of order, Mr President, the question refers to a report which has been supplied to the Prime Minister and which is the subject of examination by the Government and by officers of the various departments. It would be quite inappropriate for me to answer questions about speculation in newspapers of what is in that report and of the various costings and administrative costs. If Opposition senators want a precedent, I will give a perfect precedent. The Spender report on children's services was in fact dropped from the back of a truck in such huge numbers that everyone in this community had a copy of it. The then Minister for Social Security refused to answer questions on that report, refused to table that report and refused to talk about the cost implications of that report. The reason he gave for doing so was that it was a report to the then Government, still being considered by that Government. I take that as a perfect precedent. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. As everyone knows, Ministers are free to answer questions in the way they choose. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and refers to the current video censorship and classification system. Is the Attorney aware that many parents simply do not understand classification codes of films and are thereby not in a position to give necessary and desirable viewing guidance to their children? As it is now known that many children do watch restricted films, is the Attorney concerned that in terms of censorship the present legislation is quite irrelevant when matched with actual community practice in this area? Is the Attorney therefore satisfied to leave the current system operating in this way, or will he reconsider the benefits of a community education program in an effort to inform parents of the undesirable effects on children of restricted films and to clarify the meaning of classification codes? Senator GARETH EVANS —The whole purpose of the national uniform classification system we are endeavouring to introduce for videos to accompany the present classifications for cinema, which are by and large quite familiar to people, is to provide a code which will be universally understood and which will effectively guide parents as well as other consumers. A keynote of the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, which we hope will be model legislation for adoption in other States, is consumer guidance. It is designed to ensure that there are markings, or stickers, on video covers to guide people in selecting what they will be viewing in their homes. It is designed also to ensure that those stickers and the codes that are used in relation to them follow, so far as is possible and appropriate, the kinds of familiar classifications that people are used to for cinema. Those are G for general exhibition, that is, for films not justifying any restriction at all; PG or PGR for parental guidance; M for mature; R for restricted; and of course the additional category that has attracted a degree of controversy, X, which applies to material that is subject to very stringent point of sale controls and would not be available for public screening in a cinema. It may be that the community needs a greater degree of education as to the meaning of those code symbols and classifications, although I notice that it has been the practice in relation to films in public cinemas for most newspapers to include a table alongside cinema advertisements to explain the classifications. It may be that there is some case to be made for advertising or for some further material to be inserted in newspapers at Government expense to ensure that those classifications are familiar. Beyond that, it is difficult to see what can further be done. It is not the Government's view that we need or should have some kind of benevolent dictatorship intruding into people's homes and into the relationship between parents and their children. The Government believes-I certainly believe-that the Government has no right to take the place of parents in guiding their children and that the only role for the Government is to provide guidance in turn for parents in order to enable them, should they so choose, to fulfil that role. I will certainly give further consideration, as will the Government, to the kind of education campaign that could further be mounted in this respect, but at this stage I think it is premature for me to give any further details as to what that campaign might involve. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer him to the Government's decision in the last Budget, reinforced on 2 May by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the Minister representing him in the Senate, that aspects of the proposed assets test, namely, disposal of assets after 24 August 1983 without adequate consideration, would constitute deprivation of assets for the purposes of the test. As the new proposals from the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel are completely different from the Government' s original proposals, will the Minister assure pensioners that the test will not now apply retrospectively? Senator GRIMES —The proposals of the Gruen Panel, as Senator Teague has said, are before the Government. Some of them are similar to the previous assets test proposals and some of them are not at all similar to those proposals. The Government is at the moment considering those proposals. In that consideration, of course, there will be consideration of what deprivation provisions there should be. I remind Senator Teague that deprivation provisions are already in the social security legislation. I suggest to the honourable senator that he wait a couple of days until we get the report down and the Government's response to that report. I believe we can then debate this and all other details. But no assets test that I have suggested or that anyone else has suggested will be retrospective. Senator McINTOSH —Has the Attorney-General seen a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald that April 1985 would be the latest possible date for a Federal election? Can the Attorney-General indicate whether or not that report is accurate? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I saw the report in the Sydney Morning Herald, and indeed in a couple of other papers, the suggestion was that April 1985 was the latest possible date for a half Senate election if the new senators were to be able to take their seats on 1 July. There are two reasons, as I understand it from the material I have been able to obtain from the Special Minister of State, why the Senate count is expected to take rather longer than in the past: First, some votes which in the past would not have been admitted to the count will be counted, for example, postal and absentee votes and votes by persons whose names should be on the roll but are not for some reason; and secondly, amendments to the legislation which have adopted the Hare-Clark system with some modifications . Under the system adopted in amendments to the legislation as they now stand I am told that the number of counts required to exclude a candidate has increased substantially. Whereas in New South Wales, for example, 40 or 50 distributions of preferences were required, the number is about 1,000 under the new system. Senator Chipp —That's progress! Senator GARETH EVANS —I suggest that the case for computerisation and pulling levers is rather overripe. Be that as it may, as the Act stands the count will in fact take rather longer than the figures I have mentioned, but the amendments now before Parliament to centralise the conduct of the count are expected to improve the situation substantially. The argument is based simply on the time that it will take to run the count, suggesting that it is quite impracticable for a half Senate election to be held at any time, as has been suggested in some quarters, right up until 30 June or certainly as late as the month of May. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call the next questioner, I have pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the public gallery on my left of a former distinguished senator from Victoria, Mr Bill Brown. On behalf of all senators I extend to Mr Brown a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Minister aware of Department of Defence documents which show undeniable proof that large numbers of Aborigines either lived in, or passed through, the Maralinga atomic test area continually throughout the atomic tests in the 1950s and 1960s? I ask the Minister whether he is aware of correspondence dated 10 July 1959 between a Mr R. Macaulay, a native patrol officer, and the then superintendent of the Weapons Research Establishment at Woomera, which says: There are natives living on the fringe of the Maralinga Prohibited Zone and in the Zone itself . . . I ask him whether he is also aware of correspondence dated 14 September 1960 which states: Natives have been living well inside the Maralinga Prohibited Zone continuously from before the establishment of the Atomic Weapons Testing Grounds. Does not this hard proof indicate to the Minister that some Government departments have not been as forthcoming as they could have been on this issue and that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive public inquiry on the travesties committed by the previous British and Australian governments against the Australian Aborigines? Senator WALSH —Senator Chipp had two quotes. The first said that the natives were living on the fringe of the zone. I am aware of a Department of Defence document ; that is, a letter from Mr Macaulay, I think on the date which he cited, from which that quotation was taken. It was published in the Canberra Times a couple of days ago. I have not been able to find the second quote in either Mr Macaulay 's letter or in the other document. A quote which was almost identical to that was published in the Canberra Times. As far as I know, that did not come from Mr Macaulay's letter. I have a copy of Mr Macaulay's letter which I am quite happy to table. I note that it is a very bad photocopy and is almost illegible. Nevertheless, I table it. The thrust of Mr Macaulay's reports, so far as I am aware, is that Aborigines could have been in the area, not that they were in the area. However, quite independently of Mr Macauley's report there is one documented case-I believe it is a verified case-which shows that a family of four-two adults and two children -was detected by a patrol team in the Maralinga area circa 1957 and was found to be contaminated. Senator Jessop —One was more contaminated than the rest. Senator WALSH —Senator Jessop says that one was contaminated. My understanding is that four people were contaminated. Three of those people are still living on the Yalata reserve in South Australia. However, the possibility that other Aborigines were in the area at some time between 1953-I include the Emu test sites-and 1957 has always existed. There is, I believe, one verified report that Aborigines were contaminated. Whether they were actually in that area at the time an atomic explosion took place is not known. The other matters raised by Senator Chipp-particularly towards the end of his question-were essentially to the effect that departments have not been as forthcoming as they could have been. I do not think that I can pass a judgment on that at this stage. Senator Chipp said that there is an urgent need for a comprehensive public inquiry. I do not believe there is an urgent need for a comprehensive public inquiry, but I have stated before, and I repeat, that it is possible that such an inquiry could be required and that the Government might conduct such an inquiry. I think that it would be premature at this stage to make a decision to do that because of a number of other inquiries which the Government has in progress: For example, the Kerr inquiry, which is to report within the next week; the Symonds inquiry-I hope to be able to table a copy of Dr Symonds's summary in the Senate before the end of this week-the radiological survey which is currently being conducted at Maralinga; and the ongoing departmental inquiries. In addition, the British Government has been asked to supply specific details of how much plutonium in total was involved in the weapons tests which were conducted in Australia and in the trials subsequently conducted in the 1960s at Maralinga and, further to those questions, how much of the plutonium originally contained in all those tests is still believed to be on the site, either buried in pits or scattered in the adjacent area. I table the document obtained from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence which shows the measured and anticipated yield of the atomic weapons detonated at Monte Bello, Emu Field and Maralinga. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Attorney-General to this morning's decision of the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia upholding the appeal in the Apple computers case. I also refer the Minister to the Government's stated position to legislate, if necessary, after such a decision to confer copyright on computer software. I ask: What is the Government's legislative intention now that the Federal Court's decision is known? Senator GARETH EVANS —The decision in the case involving Apple Computers and Computer Edge was delivered in Sydney at 10.15 today. A copy of the decision was received in Canberra by my Department only late this morning. The Court held by a two to one majority that the defendants had infringed copyright in certain Apple programs by reproducing adaptations of them in memory chips in the Wombat computer. As such, the Court overturned the decision of the single judge at first instance, which was to the effect that copyright law had no application to computer software. Injunctions were issued restraining infringements of copyright in the computer programs directly, or importation or by trading in reproductions. To complete the decision, I am told that certain aspects of it were remitted back to the trial court, including questions of damages and some issues under the Trade Practices Act. A question now arises for the Government as to whether legislation is still necessary to ensure fully effective legal protection of computer software in the short term. It may be that some technical matters remain unresolved or are in need of legislative clarification. The details of the judgment, which are quite substantial, are being examined right now to ascertain their implications in this respect. Introduction of the Bill, which I had been planning to undertake later today, is being deferred to permit this examination and any redrafting which may prove to be necessary. The Bill, I indicate, may yet need to be introduced although, on the face of it, it would appear not, given the terms of the decision itself. As I have said on various occasions, the Government remains firmly committed to a careful consideration of the long term policy in this area, about which there is still very considerable public debate. There is certainly a very strong view abroad that traditional copyright type protection may not be the most appropriate kind of protection, if indeed protection is required for this kind of intellectual property. I simply indicate that the Government welcomes the emergence of the Full Bench decision, which will obviously go a great way towards clarifying the many important commercial issues and other issues which are involved in this matter. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it not a fact that home ownership has been supported by successive governments as a desirable aspiration and goal for all Australians? Would not failure to exempt the family home in a pensions assets test penalise many home owners by reducing pensions or denying them pensions? Is it not therefore inconsistent with support for the desirable aspiration to which I have referred? Senator GRIMES —Yes, home ownership has been favoured by governments of all persuasions in recent years. In answer to the second part of Senator Hill's question, I point out that neither I nor this Government has proposed an assets test which does not exclude private homes from it. There are reports, and they have been confirmed by Professor Gruen, that one of his proposals is that the family home be incorporated in an assets test. I remind Senator Hill that a report has been written by Professor Gruen and other distinguished citizens, including representatives of the Civilian Widows Federation and the Australian Pensioners Federation. I would expect, and I am sure that the honourable senator would expect, that such a report would in fact contain other recommendations which would ensure that the incorporation of the family home in an assets test would not result in a great penalty being imposed on the ordinary home owner in this country. I think the honourable senator, other honourable senators and other members of the Parliament should wait until we can have a considered look at that report and a considered debate about that report rather than comment about speculations in the newspapers. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the level of Commonwealth Government funding for schools and ask: What is the total level of assistance by the Commonwealth Government in the current financial year for expenditure by private schools compared with the allocation for government schools? Is it the case that the dollar amounts allocated by the Commonwealth to each of these two major sectors of the Australian school system are broadly equal? If so, what are the factors which explain this position? Senator RYAN —Since the programs are operated on a calendar year basis, the most appropriate figures are those published in the guideline statement for 1984. These indicate that, in updated estimated 1983 prices, government schools will receive $622.7m and non-government schools $655.6m. In answer to the second part of Senator Maguire's question, quite clearly that pattern of funding is not undertaken on an equal dollar amount for each section because on a national average about 75 per cent of children are in government schools and about 25 per cent are in non-government schools. So the proportion of funding going to non- government schools directly from the Commonwealth Government is very much higher than the proportion of those children in the schools' population. Part of the explanation for this is the fact that the Commonwealth, directly speaking, is the minor partner in funding State schools. State schools are mainly the funding responsibility of state governments and therefore the role played by the Commonwealth in terms of direct recurrent funding is that of a minor partner. In fact the figure of direct recurrent funding in recent years has been about 7 per cent. Originally when the Commonwealth Schools Commission was established the Commonwealth gave 10 per cent of the current funds to government schools. Over a successive number of years that figure has been reduced to 7 per cent. In relation to the non-government sector, as far as government or public support is concerned, the Commonwealth Government is the major funding partner. This is a situation which has been discussed and debated for some time and which does not answer the demands of all sectors of the community. It is the case that in our 1984 Budget we did redress the balance towards government funding by some percentage, but the facts are still as I have stated them, namely, that a considerably higher amount of money goes directly to non-government schools, which have 25 per cent of children, than the amount going directly to government schools, which have 75 per cent of the children. However, as I said, there are a number of reasons for this, the main one being the different nature of the relationship, the funding partnership, with regard to State schools from that which prevails with regard to non-government schools. However, all these matters are being taken into account by the Commonwealth Government in its desire to produce for this year and future years a funding formula which is equitable to all sectors, which is seen and accepted as being equitable to all sectors and which does reflect in an equitable and needs-based way the responsibility of the Commonwealth to all children. Senator WATSON —Has the Minister for Social Security noted the comment by the Assets Test Review Panel that it favoured option 2, 'potentially the most intrusive of personal privacy'? That statement is from paragraph 5.57 of the report. Has he also noted that views of the Department of Social Security that option 2 would be more difficult to administer than other options because few pensioners would have an accurate idea of the net market value of their homes, furniture and other household items? Does this mean that if this option is chosen pensioners will have to have all their assets valued at regular intervals by government bureaucrats? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the last part of the question is no. The answer to the first part is that I cannot recall paragraph 5.57 of the Gruen Panel's report, nor do I think it sensible that I comment on individual pieces taken out of it in that way until the report is in fact tabled in the Parliament, and I do not intend to do so. The second part of Senator Watson's question I do not recall. Senator Watson —That the Department of Social Security believes it would be more difficult to administer option 2. Senator GRIMES —Again I do not wish to comment on any response from my Department to that report. Any government response to that report will include the Department's assessment of the administrative difficulty, the costs of administration and the gains to be expected from the implementation of any one of the various options outlined in the report. I suggest that Senator Watson and other senators should wait for that report to be presented. Senator WATSON —I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the difficulty the Minister for Social Security has in understanding the contents of the report, I seek leave to table that report. Senator GRIMES —I reject the claim by Senator Watson that I have any difficulty in understanding the report. I certainly do not think the Senate should allow any honourable senator to table what may or may not be an unauthorised copy of that report. The PRESIDENT —Order! Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —No. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery on my right of a delegation of members of the Indian Parliament, led by the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Hon. Shri Lakshmanan . On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to all our distinguished guests a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that in November 1975 correspondence from the Rt Hon. Gough Whitlam, addressed to the Queen, was intercepted in the mail room of the Department of Foreign Affairs? If that is so, will the Minister provide full details? Is it a fact that Mr Peter Henderson was the First Assistant Secretary in charge of the mail room at that time? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know whether what Senator Primmer stated is a fact , but once again I shall have the matter checked out and seek a reply from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to you, Mr President. Is it a fact that, according to a Press statement, Telecom Australia workers who were installing telephones in Parliament House on a Monday recently had complained that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had fiddled with Telecom systems over the preceding weekend? Can you say whether the security officers of Parliament have carried out electronic sweeps of Parliament House to check whether telephone installations were being interfered with, or whether they carried out any other inspections? Can you say whether random sweeps of parliamentary offices and meeting rooms are being carried out? What other measures have been adopted by parliamentary security officers to ensure that senators and members are able to speak to their constituents and others concerning their parliamentary responsibilities with the confidence that their conversations are free from the intrusion of eavesdroppers? The PRESIDENT —I can tell the honourable senator that when senators complain of alleged interference with their telephones, the matter is immediately reported to the Security Controller, and when such a complaint is received that complaint is investigated immediately. As the honourable senator would know, from time to time sweeps have been made of committee rooms. I think at one time that occurred at the request of the honourable senator. The other aspects of the honourable senator's question involve matters that require a much more detailed response than I could give immediately. I shall discuss the matter with the Security Controller and report further to the Senate. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What recent initiatives have been taken in regard to the provision of children's services, with particular reference to satisfying the demand for additional places and providing subsidies for low income households? Senator GRIMES —I would suppose the most recent change that has been made in the delivery of children's services in this country, which will improve the number of child care services available and make for a more rational development of those services, has been the development of co-operation between the Federal Government and the States, particularly the States of New South Wales and Western Australia. Under that co-operative effort, the States' contribution will be by way of the provision of land and sometimes buildings, and more particularly assistance to the Commonwealth in determining high need areas for children's services. In those three States, through that co-operative effort, we are able to build child care centres at a more reasonable cost and we are able to produce those centres in areas of greatest need, which had been one of the great problems in the distribution of children's services. Of course, we are able to do so at less cost to the Commonwealth because of the contributions of the various States. The New South Wales Government has developed a series of standard plans which has resulted in the capacity to build child care centres at a very much reduced cost compared with other States and previously most States. In Western Australia we have a joint Commonwealth-State planning committee which is in fact ensuring the distribution of children's services to areas of high need, particularly areas with large numbers of disadvantaged children. As far as special assistance with subsidies is concerned, recently the Government announced the introduction of the new special economic needs subsidy, which involves an increased expenditure of about $5m. Compared with the old system, this results, we believe, in a more equitable distribution of funds and has resulted in assistance, particularly to low income families and families with more than one child who need care. So far, the announcement of the new system has been welcomed generally in the children's services area. Last year we increased expenditure by some $11m; this year, as Senator Giles would know, the Government has announced that it will spend another $30m on children's services. I hope that that expenditure, the initiatives we have already taken, and the co- operation of the States, together with the introduction of 24-hour day care centres where they are needed and work related centres where they are needed, will ensure a more comprehensive and more equitable system than has operated in the past and will enable us to increase the number of places at a much greater rate than has been the case in the past. Senator DURACK —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to an address that he gave to the Commonwealth Legal Aid Conference in Sydney on Sunday. I am pleased to note that the Attorney-General enjoyed the sound of his own voice when delivering that address. But, what I am more interested in is the reference he made to a report by a Dr Jeremy Cooper on methods of legal aid delivery, which report is said by the Attorney-General to contain very challenging suggestions on how to make more effective use of the private profession in the delivery of public-funded legal services. Does the Attorney- General intend to table that obviously interesting and informative report in this chamber? If not, why not? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is no reason why the Cooper document should not be tabled, if that is the desire of Senator Durack. It has been distributed widely to legal aid professionals and legal aid commissions. There is no secrecy about it; it is a discussion document of some utility in raising the quality of debate , which was not much enhanced by the honourable senator's advocacy when he was in a position to do something about the condition of legal aid in this country. I will give consideration to the logistics involved in doing so, and will certainly ensure that the honourable senator has a copy of the document as soon as I can get one to him. Senator COATES —I ask a question of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Minister will recall receiving representations from me about the arrangements for optometrical services to Tasmanians who are the responsibility of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and he will recall my mentioning dissatisfaction that had arisen in that State as a result of the letting of the contract for those services last year. Can the Minister yet provide me with any information in response to those representations? Senator GIETZELT —It is true that Senator Coates has raised with me on several occasions the problem of the provision of spectacles in Tasmania as a result of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in Tasmania to accept a contract in August of last year. In fact, senators on the other side of the House have also raised with me problems that have arisen as a result of acceptance of the lowest tender. I think it has to be conceded that as we have a system of decentralisation those sorts of decisions are made at that level. It has been proven that the tenderer has not performed satisfactorily for quite some time, although there has been very divided opinion on this. Some clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs have been very happy with him and some have been very unhappy with him. In more recent times complaints have been investigated by the Department and some matters have been put in the hands of the Australian Federal Police. Allegations have been made against the tenderer and those matters are currently being examined by the Australian Federal Police. In addition to that, the Department has asked the tenderer to show cause why he should not have his tender rescinded. There are sufficient breaches to suggest that that sort of action should be taken. As a result, I think, of all the inquiries and investigations that have been made by my Department arising from the concern about the provision of optometrical services in Tasmania for clients of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, tenders have been called and the Australian Optometrical Association will in 1984-85 be awarded the tender on the basis of being the lowest tenderer. So the reign of Mr Wallace-Williams will come to an end in any case. But these other matters are currently under consideration by the Australian Federal Police and the Department. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I understand that representations have recently been made to the Prime Minister by the Moorabbin Council in Victoria for assistance with regard to a dispute which is jeopardising an employment program in that State. As I am advised, some plumbers were employed under the municipal community centres and public halls employment scheme in respect of which funding was allocated to councils on a dollar for dollar basis to employ long term unemployed persons, particularly tradesmen. A dispute has arisen as the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union has pressured officers of the Moorabbin Council to acknowledge and pay the plumbers engaged on the Moorabbin building in accordance with that union's award. All council staff are employed under the Municipal Employers Union award, to which all Victorian councils are respondents. The dispute has placed the long term unemployed persons who come under the program in a very difficult position because they are unable to receive the Commonwealth unemployment benefit. The dispute is now five weeks old. There is a difficulty with regard to the finalisation of the program within the time allotted for the project. Can the Minister find out from the Prime Minister's response to the representations or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether any assistance is able to be given in regard to the matter I have raised with him? Senator BUTTON —I am unfamiliar with the matter raised by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It is a very sad thing if territorial disputes between union employees should damage the interests of people who have been unemployed and who benefit from the Commonwealth employment program. I will direct the question, if I may, to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations because I think it is appropriate that he, rather than the Prime Minister, answer it. It is peculiarly within his province. Senator CROWLEY —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I have received many requests and submissions from women involved in the running of women's shelters. The questions seek clarification about the guidelines for continued funding of shelters and in particular for salaries of the staff in shelters. Is the Minister aware of the confusion and disquiet amongst shelter workers, both within the States and between States? Can the Minister say whether the Government accepts the claim by the women from the shelter movement that there is a great need for national discussion and consultation about shelters and, if so, can he say whether the Government is prepared to assist such a national consultation and to what extent? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the concern that has existed for some time amongst those who run and work in women's refuges about the future of their funding. I note that recently, with the distribution of money under the women's emergency services program, we have improved the salaries of staff and, in some cases, the staffing of the various refuges. However, I do not think that the situation is at all satisfactory at the moment. Earlier this year the Government funded a national conference which was attended by representatives of refuges from all over the country. As a result, for the first time-I think it is very welcome-the national refuge group formed a much smaller group of some 10 representatives from the various States and Territories. This will be a more manageable, more sensible and more rational way for them to go about their discussion. It is my understanding that that group has put in a request for assistance, particularly with air fares, to conduct the first meeting of that organisation. I referred that request to my colleague Senator Ryan, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. It was her Department which funded the last conference. At the moment discussions are being held between my Department and Senator Ryan's Department. I dare say that, very soon, discussions will be held between Senator Ryan and me as to how, if possible, we can assist this group. Senator CHANEY —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Communications agree with the view expressed by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Myer, that 'the plain fact is that reporting from or about some parts of the world needs special care to observe the laws of the land which differ from country to country'? Does he believe that the Chairman acted correctly in his handling of the Four Corners interview with the leader of the Free Papua Movement? In view of the widespread concern and protests from ABC staff about the Chairman's actions, does Mr Myer retain the support of the Government? Has the Minister or the Prime Minister considered complaining to the Chairman about his decision or about his actions, as was done on an earlier occasion with Mr Myer's predecessor? Senator BUTTON —The question of the Port Moresby office of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a matter for the ABC and the Government of Papua New Guinea. The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has the full confidence of this Government. No member of the Government will be complaining to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about the actions which have been taken. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Minister representing the Minister for Communications agree with the view expressed by the Chairman which I gave in my question, namely, 'the plain fact is that reporting from or about'-I stress 'or about'-'some parts of the world needs special care to observe the laws of the land which differ from country to country'? Does the Minister believe that that is a proper statement of the duties which the ABC has to the Australian people? Senator BUTTON —The duties which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has to the Australian people are defined in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act . It is for the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-- Senator Chaney —That is a nice change. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney said that it is a nice change. We gave it those conditions. It never had them before. It is more independent than it has ever been. The second part of the question related to whether I have a view about that. I have a view but I do not think it is the least bit relevant to the discussion. Mr Myer's view was clarified in a subsequent statement to the one Senator Chaney mentioned. Senator Chaney —I was quoting from the subsequent statement. Senator BUTTON —No, Senator Chaney was not. My view of what Mr Myer meant on a particular occasion is not relevant. That is for him to say. It is for him to interpret the legislation which the Government has given to the ABC. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to urgent representations made by some Queensland coal producers for taxation relief? In view of the current impasse between the Queensland Premier and the Queensland coal industry, can the Minister indicate whether the Federal Government is able to respond quickly to those representations. Senator WALSH —Some weeks ago-probably more than a month ago-I received representations on behalf of the Thiess CSR mine at South Blackwater and the Thiess Dampier Mitsui mine seeking relief from the coal export duty for coal produced by those mines. Yesterday the Government decided that that relief from duty would be granted. The mines in question are required, for quality reasons to meet contract specifications, to mix about 25 per cent of underground mined coal with the predominantly open cut coal. Because of that, they were obliged to pay the coal export duty of $3.50 a tonne on the entire mix. They are mines that are operating on the margin of profitability, or possibly even below that margin . That decision having been made, the only two remaining mines which will be liable to pay the coal export duty are BHP Utah and BHP Gregory. The duty cannot have an effect on any new mines because it applies-and applied even before yesterday's decision-only to open cut, highly quality, coking coal mined at depths of less than 60 metres and in mines operating before 1980. The Government , in making its decision, was conscious not only of the problems of those specific producers and the incongruity of a tax designed to apply only to highly profitable ventures; it was also conscious of the need to maintain, and to show the Government's commitment to maintain, underground coal mining in Queensland, and I might add in New South Wales. I add that the two mines to which the coal export duty will continue to apply are quite profitable or highly profitable mines. It is to be hoped that the Queensland Government will follow the lead established by the Commonwealth Government and provide some relief from the hidden taxes which it imposes, particularly on newer Queensland coal mines. I refer to the hidden tax in the form of excessive rail charges. Regrettably, however, the present intransigent attitude of the Queensland Premier suggests that that will not happen. Indeed, the Queensland Premier, responding I suppose in typical National Party fashion to the complaints-indeed, one might say, to the financial strife of a number of Queensland coal producers-has threatened those coal producers that he will rescind the always somewhat illusory freight concessions that he announced some weeks ago. In general it is an attempt by the Queensland Premier to bully the Queensland coal producers into silence. Finally, I note that Queensland, which used to be boasted of by its Premier as the development State, is rapidly becoming a wide ranging confrontationist State . Confrontation between that Government and some groups has always been part of the style of the Queensland National Party Government. The number of groups with which it is having confrontations has now been widened to include coal producers , with which the Queensland Government previously would have claimed to have good relations. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I do not know whether the Minister intends to use Question Time to announce all of his revenue concessions, but the fact is that, in answer to a quite specific question, he is rambling on with a general criticism of the Queensland State Government. I suggest that he should be asked to answer the question and just sit down. The PRESIDENT —I suggest that the Minister is commencing to debate the matter. I suggest that he confine himself to the question posed by the honourable senator. Senator WALSH —The Commonwealth Government has recognised the just case put forward by these mines and their need for relief from the coal export duty. We hope that similar rational policies and attitudes will be adopted by the Queensland Government in response to the other problem mines in Queensland but, regrettably, the indications are that that is not likely to happen. Senator KILGARIFF —My question to the Attorney-General relates to the theft of road signs from Pine Gap in the Northern Territory and their subsequent sale by raffle at a meeting of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party held in Melbourne last year. I ask: Who was responsible for running the raffle? Have these people been charged by the police with appropriate charges for selling Government property? Have those people responsible for the theft of the signs been charged with theft? Has the Federal Government intervened in any way on this matter? If not, what action does the Government intend to take-we have been waiting for quite a while-through the use of the Australian Federal Police, say, who it is suggested were in attendance at the auction? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that the Victorian branch of the ALP is often characterised in various ways but, as I understand it, the locale for the famous raffle was not a meeting of the left wing of the ALP; it was in fact a State conference of the ALP. I know that in some people's minds those concepts are confused-sometimes they are in my own-but I understand that that was the occasion. The sleuthing of Senator Messner produced that particular result when he raised this major issue a few weeks ago, before the Senate rose. After Senator Messner raised the matter in Question Time on that day and then during the adjournment debate I did refer the matter to the Australian Federal Police for such investigation as they felt able to conduct. At this stage I am still waiting to hear from the Special Minister of State or, for that matter, directly from the Australian Federal Police as to the outcome of those investigations. When the matter is brought to a conclusion or some sort of report is obtained, I will certainly let the honourable senator know. Senator COOK —I refer the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to a statement made by Senator Messner in his Press release of 24 May, which stated: . . . it has been revealed in public evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare that the Minister now acknowledges that his much-publicised list of 'top pension cheats' was an inaccurate presentation of facts . . . My question is simply this: Was that statement by Senator Messner correct? Senator GIETZELT —If that statement was made by Senator Messner it was completely inaccurate and inadequate. In fact, the first person to speak about pension cheats and millionaire pensioners was Sir Phillip Lynch back in March 1982, when he was a senior Cabinet Minister in the previous Government. All I did was to draw to the attention of my Party the continuation of the practice, which had obviously been drawn to the attention of the previous Government. I stand by the statements I made then because all the evidence available to me indicates that circumvention of the income test by certain pensioners is as widespread as I had first thought. Senator Messner's claim is probably based on evidence given by the project officer of the Returned Services League, Mr Taylor, who seems to be under the impression that the views I expressed were based upon applications for service pensions, not on the review of the system carried out by my Department. It was suggested that if someone put a lump sum superannuation payment of $150,000 into a trading account, he was not endeavouring to circumvent an income test in order to qualify for the service pension. That would be ludicrous because, as Mr Taylor pointed out, that would be a temporary arrangement by such a person. I take the view, as I think any reasonable person would, that if a person had a lump sum of $150,000 he could invest it and get twice the amount of money he would get from the Government by way of a service or age pension. That information came to me mainly as a result of reviews carried out by my Department, not as a result of initial application for service pension. Senator ARCHER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it correct that the Government's Green Paper, entitled 'The Trade Practices Act-Proposals for Change', was circulated to industry inviting comment? Will the Attorney- General advise the Senate whether any industry wrote in support of the abolition of section 45D or whether industry totally or substantially requested the retention of section 45D or its replacement giving industry a like or similar protection from disputes in which they are not active participants and ensuring that legal obligations fall on unions as well as industry? Senator GARETH EVANS —A Green Paper was widely circulated among industry and interested persons in the community. I have not yet had a tabulated response prepared from my Department indicating the full range of views-they have been very widespread-that have been expressed on the Green Paper and, in particular, on section 45D. So I am not in a position to answer the honourable senator's question. Senator WALSH —During Question Time Senator Chipp asked me a question in which he gave two quotations. He asked me whether I was aware of those quotations having come from Mr Macaulay, a native patrol officer working in the Maralinga area during the 1950s and 1960s. I said that I was aware of the first quotation having come from Mr Macaulay. I was not aware of the second quotation having come from Mr Macaulay, although it had appeared in almost identical form in the Canberra Times a couple of days ago, though not attributed to Mr Macaulay. That was correct. Since then, however, Senator Chipp has provided me with a photocopy of a letter signed by R. Macaulay which I presume came from the Department of Defence, although that is not clear, in which this paragraph appears: Natives have been living well inside the Maralinga Prohibited Zone continuously from before the establishment of the Atomic Weapons Testing Grounds. It is reasonable to assume that they did not move further east than Long. E.131* and further south than Lat. S.29* 30'. I am told that the conjunction of that latitude and longitude is the Lake Maurice area which is roughly 100 kilometres north west of the Maralinga Village and, therefore, I would expect, some 60 kilometres from the Maralinga test site. The eastern extremity of longitude 131* would at some point from that clearly be some distance closer than 65 kilometres to the Maralinga test site. I add that I was not able to contact the Department prior to answering Senator Chipp's question. It was dropped into my office about 12 o'clock but the member of my staff who handles questions was out until about 1.30 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-The decision to establish a passenger motor vehicle industry in Australia was made in the 1940s. Since then, the industry has been subject to numerous changes of fortune and, more recently, to changes in government policy designed principally as responses to particular crises which have arisen. This Government is firmly committed to the continuance of a viable motor vehicle manufacturing industry in Australia. It is an industry which employs a large number of Australians, which has nurtured managerial and engineering skills, and which contributed significantly to gross domestic product. The Government recognises the need for industries with a good future, competitive both here and internationally. Inevitably, as in all industrialised countries, there will be in Australia changes in the structure of industry, with some industries declining and new industries developing with sound prospects for future growth. There are also industries already established such as the manufacture of passenger motor vehicles which, given the right policy environment and commitment from the industry itself, can become increasingly competitive, stable industries and a strength rather than a weakness in the Australian economy. It is the Government's task to facilitate the process of change, and to ensure that it is accomplished with minimum disruption and cost. In looking to such a future for this industry, the Government is hampered with the mistakes of the past. It is, for example, a trite observation to say that there are too many manufacturers in Australia. It is a fact of life which has to be taken account of. In the 1950s and 1960s, the industry had two or three dominant manufacturers, each producing a relatively large volume of cars. In the early 1960s, Australia had a skilled, viable and relatively competitive automotive industry. Operating behind a tariff wall of 35 per cent for both imports and components, the local industry produced three models which held most of the local market. The local market operated as a volume base for significant export activity, particularly in the South East Asian region. In the early 1960s , General Motors-Holden's Ltd exported over 30 per cent of its product. The competitiveness of the industry has declined a great deal since that time. An important source of the competitive slide of the Australian industry was external to Australia. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Japanese car industry's competitiveness improved dramatically against the vehicle manufacturing industry of all vehicle-producing countries, not just Australia's. But there is more to the decline of the Australian industry than the prodigious achievement of the Japanese. There is much for which we are responsible ourselves, and so much, fortunately, which we can do to improve the situation ourselves. Government policy since the mid-1960s has been increasingly characterised by short term crisis containment, lack of direction and inward-looking policies. In summary, the result has been an industry which has had rising levels of protection and declining levels of performance-circumstances which are costly to the taxpayer and damaging to the industry itself in terms of its morale, prestige, security of the work force and capacity to plan ahead. The community is entitled to expect that over a period the industry will adjust to a reversal of the process I have just referred to, and that there will be an improvement in performance at less cost. Throughout the difficult process of considering this industry, the Government has consulted widely with the various interests involved, and has sought, and obtained, their views. The issues and the relationships between the various sectors of the industry are complex, and we are conscious that no prescription for change and the development of a new sense of purpose and direction can receive universal approval. Nor are there any text-book solutions for an industry with the history of this one, and with the consequences which flow from the fact that it is almost entirely foreign owned. The process of changing direction, however, is not assisted by ill-informed speculation based on nothing but political, journalistic or other expediencies suggesting on the one hand rising costs to the Australian consumer, or dire employment consequences if any change occurs. In the course of the process of consultation to which I referred, the Government in October last year appointed a Car Industry Council comprising representatives of the various sectors in an attempt to solicit industry solutions to the problems which have to be faced. I am grateful to those who participated in the work of the Car Industry Council which provided a valuable avenue for consultation, communication and exchange of views between government, union and employer participants. I believe it was the first stage in replacing the pessimism and lack of direction which had come to permeate the industry, with some optimism and sense of common purpose. While on the Council there was widespread agreement on the nature and extent of the industry's problems, there was much less agreement on the methods of solving them. In an industry which embraces a number of very diverse interests, which is severely fragmented and in which the desire to advance particular sectional goals is inevitable, it is not surprising that agreement could not be reached. The need for a long term direction was, however, keenly felt at the Council. In its report submitted to the Government on 14 December last year, the Council proposed: . . . that the Government announce an industry goal. The purpose of such a goal would be to give notice to the industry of the direction in which the Government wishes it to go. Individual participants in the industry would then be able to make forward plans, in consultation with government, which they knew to be in harmony with the Government's long term aims for the industry. The industry goal would involve 'a target for the industry to reach, and a strategy to reach it'. There are a number of principles which have guided the Government in considering an appropriate strategy: 1. There must be a process of adjustment over a period of years. In an industry with long lead times, predictability and stability of policy are essential. This is even more important during a period in which significant structural change is expected to occur. 2. The need to concentrate on the strengths of the industry with a view to encouraging exports. 3. The encouragement of rationalisation and cost reduction. 4. The necessity for greater integration of the Australian industry. 5. The encouraging of greater Australian equity in, and participation in, the management of foreign-owned companies, as well as increased autonomy of local operation. If the strategy is implemented with firmness and commitment, the local manufacturing industry should be considerably more efficient in the 1990s than it is today. That efficiency should be reflected in a lower cost disability against the world industry; an ability to compete without quota restrictions on imports; lower real prices for locally manufactured vehicles; stability of employment in the industry; an industry which has concentrated its efforts towards its strengths, and is not only more competitive against imports, but also an active exporter; and, finally, an industry which displays greater unity of purpose, integration of functions and management, and technical co-operation between the components and vehicle manufacturing sectors. In order for the industry to achieve these aims, major changes in industry structure, relationships and practices will be necessary. If these changes occur there is, in the Government's view, no reason why the industry should not be manufacturing at about the same level as it is today, in an environment of stability and purposefulness. If the changes help the industry towards greater success in export activity the volume, use of capacity, and employment in the industry will improve even further. I turn now to the major policy measures to be implemented by the Government: Short Term Measures A number of measures will be introduced to help stabilise the industry in the short term, and to enable it to meet the challenge of gradually reduced restrictions against imports. As from tomorrow, certain passenger cars currently classified as varients or 4-wheel drive vehicles, and therefore attracting a lower rate of import duty, will be brought under the passenger motor vehicle plan and attract the same rate of duty. Normal agricultural 4-wheel drive vehicles and forward control vehicles will not be affected by this process. Quota arrangements, as adjusted for the inclusion of specific categories of variants and 4-wheel drive vehicles brought under the plan, will be continued. This will avoid the possibility inherent in the previous Government's policy of sudden shocks to the industry and will give some stability and predictability. The quota for completely built up imports in 1985 will be 110,000 vehicles, a figure which includes some 20,000 vehicles formerly classified as variants and 4 -wheel drive vehicles and referred to above. Plan manufacturers will each be allocated 6,000 imports. The export facilitation scheme will be amended so that Australian skill levels are protected, and to ensure that the extension of export facilitation beyond 7 1/2 per cent will not be prejudicial to the orderly development of the industry. Price Reductions and Gradual Removal of Quota Restrictions against Imports To ensure that over a period the efficiency gains which the Government expects from the measures outlined in this statement are passed on to the consumer, the penalty tariff on cars imported outside of quota will be gradually lowered. The Government will encourage efficiencies in the import sector by gradually deregulating the current method of going from 150 per cent in 1985 to 125 per cent in 1992. This Government will be phasing the penalty tariff from 100 per cent in 1985 down to 57 1/2 in 1992. This will mean that by 1992 a car entering the country outside quota will do so at the same tariff rate as one within quota , and quota restrictions will cease to have any effect. Automotive Industry Authority An Automotive Industry Authority will be established to act as an honest broker in the industry, monitoring the activities of, and consulting with, industry participants to encourage consensus and action consistent with the Government's policy objectives. It will act as a catalyst to promote desirable change, improve integration, co-ordination and effectiveness. The Authority will report regularly to the Government and the Australian people on the competitiveness of the industry. Reduction in Model Lines An important function of the Authority will be to facilitate the Government's aims of achieving a contraction in the number of model lines provided by the Australian industry, and a corresponding increase in the volume of each. Such a development, along with standardisation of components, can achieve much in terms of efficiency. Features of the industry by 1992 should thus include the production of six, or fewer, model lines compared to the current 13; a concentration on vehicles and components in which the Australian industry has the least cost disability and substantial volume of demand; and increased sharing of models between manufacturers on a rebadging basis. In early 1988, the Government will give special consideration to the Authority' s annual report for 1987 in relation to the progress made to date by, and the proposals by manufacturers for model rationalisation and to the success in achieving efficiencies in component production. In the light of that report and of the Authority's recommendations, we shall consider whether additional measures are needed to hasten rationalisation. Labour Adjustment Because this industry has, during the last 10 years, been subject to sharp reductions in employment, and for reasons elaborated on elsewhere in this statement, the Government has decided to designate the industry for the purposes of the labour adjustment training arrangements scheme, the LATA scheme. The Import Sector The Government will encourage efficiencies in the import sector by gradually deregulating the current method of allocating base quota. The Government believes that the market share of an importer by 1990 should be a result of that importer's competitiveness in the local market. It should not be determined in large part by their performance in 1974-nearly 15 years before, when quotas were first imposed. Accordingly, the Government will phase in a system in which all quota are put to tender. It is possible for a tender system of this kind to be disruptive either because it is brought in too quickly or because a particular importer seeks to corner all, or most, of the available quota. The Government will not tolerate predatory behaviour and has sought and obtained assurances from the major importers. The phasing in of a tender quota will be over four years. Assembly at Low Local Content Assembly operations with low local content bring little to this country. The import price of a full pack of components is often very little different from the import price of the assembled vehicle, and the assembly operation takes little skill, is uneconomic, and feasible only with a very high level of assistance. We have therefore decided to reduce considerably, over the next few years, the effective rate of protection given to pure assembly operations. The concessional rate of duty on packs imported by assemblers will move up from 35 per cent to 57.5 per cent by 1988. We have decided also that the 15 per cent imported content allowance-and additions thereto gained by export facilitation-currently used by manufacturers to import duty-free components, may be used by them to import components or cars . Under such an arrangement, manufacturers would be able to import fully a proportion of vehicles they would otherwise assemble here while maintaining an 85 per cent company average. The major benefits would be: Reduced costs and lower prices for those companies able to use this option; increased demand for higher local content vehicles competing with vehicles which have been removed from production. This facility, if utilised by a manufacturer, should be introduced in an orderly way to minimise any possible disruption. Design and Tooling I have emphasised the Government's desire to encourage the best aspects of the Australian industry, and to enhance its skill and technology. The Government will give positive assistance to the design of components or vehicles, and has decided over the next five years to allocate up to $150m aimed at the developing automotive products competitive in the domestic and international markets. Full details of this scheme will be announced shortly. Benefits will accrue to the tooling industry from fewer vehicle models with longer production runs and from a greater emphasis on indigenous design. The Government will also co-operate with the South Australian Government in examining the feasibility of establishing an industry consortium jointly to produce tooling used in the manufacture of motor vehicles and components. It is an obvious example of an activity where co-operation rather than competition should provide considerable benefits to the industry as a whole, and the suggestion has received favourable reaction from several manufacturers. It will have our support. Ownership and Control Over the years the Australian motor vehicle industry in all its parts has been marked by a very high degree of foreign ownership and control. This has brought some benefits, not only in terms of investment and technology transfer but also by way of greater integration of the Australian and the world car industries. The fact remains, however, that decisions made in overseas boardrooms can profoundly affect the local industry and work against its best interests. The Government desires to see greater Australian participation in ownership and control in all sectors of the industry, and greater participation by Australians in the management, at all levels, of overseas-owned companies operating here. In any corporate restructuring the Government would expect proper opportunity to be given for Australian equity and control, and it will instruct the Authority to bear these aims in mind in promoting rationalisation. Transfer Pricing Suggestions have been made that both vehicles and components are being imported into Australia at f.o.b. prices substantially below equivalent prices at home or into other markets. An integral part of any move to tariff only protection must be action to ensure that the Australian industry will be competing against fair prices in the domestic market. Accordingly, the Government will require the Automotive Industry Authority to monitor prices in Australia and overseas. If unfair pricing practices are suggested by the monitoring, procedures will be established for dealing with them. In addition, if the local content scheme is to work and be seen to work effectively, it must operate according to fair prices. This is an area where we are not satisfied that previous governments have done all that they could. Because of that, starting in 1985, plan producers will be required to provide the administering Authority with a complete cost breakdown by individual functional components of component packs actually landed in this country. This will be required to be done on an ongoing basis. The plan will be amended also to empower the Minister, on the advice of the Authority, to seek justification of component prices where there are reasons to make such a request. Intent of Policy These are the essential elements of government policy in respect of this troubled industry. They are designed to provide a framework in which the industry can develop with a sense of purpose and vision. They are designed to provide short term assistance to the industry to help it to face up to a process of orderly adjustment with a view to attaining greater efficiency and stability. They are designed to reduce the cost to the community and the disruptions to the industry and its employees which have occurred over the past decade. They are designed to allow an important manufacturing industry in Australia to show that it has the capacity to adapt and do well in the domestic and international markets. There are a number of other more detailed aspects of the Government's proposals which will be dealt with in separate documents, although some aspects such as those requiring consultation with New Zealand under the close economic relations trade agreement remain to be settled. The proposals outlined above are predicated on the fact that two of the most important considerations in the success of a motor industry are volume and continuity, both in vehicle manufacture and the component sector. The proposed reduction in the number of model lines is aimed at achieving this result. By the early 1990s the Government expects to see no more than three vehicle manufacturing groups operating in this country. The least disruptive way in which this can be brought about is by consortium and co-operation arrangements between existing manufacturers to preserve their operations in this country. Government policy will facilitate this. Improvements in the competitiveness of the components industry can be expected to flow from changes such as increased economies of scale made available through model reductions and co-operation between vehicle manufacturers; increased use of standardised components and common technical standards by all manufacturers; improved technical integration with customers; and greater stability of ordering from customers. The Government will again be actively promoting these objectives. Employment I turn now to the question of employment, which is a matter of prime concern to the Government, and a subject of much ill-informed speculation. The motor vehicle industry in the past 10 years has been subject to severe reductions in employment, which have been largely related to the success or otherwise of the respective manufacturers in the market. In the last ten years employment has reduced in the vehicle manufacturing sector by 11,000. In 1983 employment by one company alone reduced by approximately 3,000. In December 1983 I was informed by GMH that as a result of substantial financial losses incurred by that company, it was its intention to reduce its work force by a further 3,500 to 4,000 employees. This advice was confirmed three weeks ago. Earlier this year I was informed by Mitsubishi that as a result of substantial losses incurred by that company, it was its intention to reduce its work force by approximately 150. A recent announcement by that company confirms this intent. On the other hand, Nissan Motor Corporation is about to employ nearly 200 more workers as a result of increased used of capacity in building Pulsar vehicles for GMH. If the intentions referred to above are carried out, they will take place irrespective of any action by this Government. They are a direct result of the chronic instability in this industry, represented by too many manufacturers producing too many models in a small and highly competitive market which in recent years has had no opportunity of expansion into exports. This Government is concerned to provide long term stability, the capacity to expand and to provide secure employment. Inevitably, however, there will be reductions in total employment levels in this industry by the 1990s. This is a pattern which has characterised industries of this kind throughout the world, and each of the manufacturers in Australia has confirmed the view that Australia will be no exception to this process. If there is an improvement in the competitiveness of the industry, however, the employment situation will be much better. This is the challenge which the industry faces and which the Government is concerned it should meet. If it does so, then the prospects for stable employment in the future, albeit at a reduced overall level, will be enhanced. In the short to medium term, the policies which I have referred to above should give the industry an opportunity to improve its volume and to stabilise employment. The longer term situation will depend very much on an improvement in competitiveness accompanied by some reduction in overall employment. For this reason the government has designated the industry as one to which the labour adjustment training arrangements-LATA-scheme applies. This scheme is aimed specifically at providing retraining assistance for workers retrenched from designated industries. It is proving to be an effective tool for structural adjustment, and has been well accepted by eligible workers. Trainees, who receive a special benefit of $46 a week over and above unemployment benefits, have undertaken a wide range of vocational courses to upgrade and improve their skills. Conclusion The broad outline of the Government's proposals for this industry is not negotiable, although in an industry of this kind there is always room for minor adjustments and improvements during a major program of change. In the course of this plan the Government expects co-operation from the industry, and if it is not forthcoming, it has methods at its disposal, such as acceleration of the reduction of penalty rates or denial of access to imports to plan producers, to ensure that the intent of the plan is carried out. The Government will certainly act if there are attempts to subvert the intent of the plan by importers or manufacturers. There is every reason to believe, however, that there will be co- operation in seeking to achieve the goal referred to earlier in this statement. The industry is aware of its shortcomings and aware that it has many difficulties to overcome, and has embarked on a series of initiatives to reduce its disabilities. One such initiative is the government-assisted project which commenced in late 1983 under the direction of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and with the co-operation of the manufacturers, which is designed to achieve standardisation of motor vehicle components. This work is likely to achieve substantial savings to the industry by 1985. Similarly, vehicle manufacturers and component manufacturers have worked together over the past year towards a supplier evaluation program designed to improve the price, quality and supply of automotive components and to standardise quality control mechanisms. Each of these initiatives has been fully supported by the Government. These commendable initiatives could well be the forerunner in Australia of what the Europeans refer to as 'co-operative competition' which, simply stated, means joint ventures, the development of consortia for production purposes and to utilise capacity fully, and the reduction of costs by standardisation of methods. Some signs of confidence are returning to the industry. In recent weeks the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd has signalled its intention to expend more than $41m to install an aluminium casting and machinery centre in Geelong. Other manufacturers have acquired plants in the component sector. These are expressions of confidence in the future, and are matched by the genuine efforts being made to improve efficiencies. But that future is much more in the hands of the industry than the Government. It must make new initiatives and difficult adjustments. The Government has laid down a policy framework within which the industry can modernise and progress. The Government has confidence it can do so. The community is entitled to see that it does. I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.42) —The Opposition welcomes the fact that at last the Government has produced its much vaunted plan for the Australian motor industry, more than six months after it received the Car Industry Council report . The program is, however, one which is acknowledged to be complex. A very detailed statement has been attached to the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). Further parts are yet to be outlined. The Opposition acknowledges that many beneficial proposals are involved in the total program. However, at the outset I should say that the statement just made by the Minister is full of glowing promises and glowing, self-contratulatory statements about his achievement. The fundamental question facing the Australian motor industry and the Australian people is how Australia can become internationally competitive. The Opposition clearly recognised that when in government. I ask the Minister how this new variation of the Fraser Government plan will achieve that purpose. How does it support Mr Hawke's recent statement, when making a solemn commitment only six weeks ago, that the new scheme would aim at the maintenance of motor vehicle production at about its present level, when the Minister himself has acknowledged that it will not achieve that purpose? What people in the industry want is jobs. I have talked to those in the industry and to union representatives. I find an overwhelming fear in the industry that they will lose their jobs. They want jobs; they do not want changes in conditions or variations being imposed on them so far as centralised wage fixing systems impose changes on industries that are not in a position to sustain those changes. What people need in order to have jobs is a sensible wages policy. Amongst all of the complex proposals in the Minister's statement and the attached documents, not a word appears to address the essential element, a wages policy; not a word appears to address the second major element, a reduction of the cost of bureaucracy and regulation. The wages costs, wage on-costs and costs of bureaucracies as well as State charges and government charges, are the burdens with which Australian industry is trying to cope; burdens that are making Australian industry uncompetitive with other countries. It is not lack of skills or capacity that is making Australian industry uncompetitive; it is the lack of a chance, and the Minister' s statement does not address this question. Far from reducing bureaucracy, this Government proposes to create yet another qango, the Automobile Industry Authority. There the Government will have the opportunity to second-guess the industry, to interfere with it, to make it less flexible, and to attempt to judge for the industry, and thereby destroy the fundamental basis claimed in the statement of having market forces make decisions as to who should survive. Throughout the Minister's statement is a strong authoritarianism that amounts to the virtual corporatisation of the Australian motor industry. There is no doubt that a restructuring of the Australian motor industry is and has been necessary. As I said before, the former Government, the present Opposition, has recognised this; we support proper measures taken to restructure Australian industry. But the restructuring must be designed to achieve international competitiveness. That cannot be done when the industry is over- burdened with a wages system that will not work and when it is overburdened with red tape and bureaucracy which impose huge costs. The Government's plan is far more draconian in its consequences to employment in the Australian motor industry than was the Fraser Government's plan. The result by the early 1990s will be that fewer Australian cars will be produced in Australia; and those that are will contain a lesser pecentage of Australian- manufactured component parts. It appears that many component parts manufacturers will be hard hit. I wonder where in the plan the component parts manufacturers get a really honest chance to be able to preserve their role in Australian industry. Senator Watson —They are the big employers. Senator PETER RAE —As Senator Watson says, they are the big employers. In the short term, the consumer will be affected adversely by increases in the prices of some imported vehicles by as much as 22 1/2 per cent and an overall increase in imported vehicle prices. The Minister's statement talks about encouraging Australian ownership. Perhaps that is intended to be some form of sick joke. After the statement the Minister has made, and the acknowledgment he gives of the very real problems that the industry is facing, and will continue to face while it has to put up with the wages policy and bureaucratic and regulatory approaches, can one imagine anyone in his right mind wanting to make new investment in this industry? Assemblers, such as those involved with Volvo and Peugeot and a number of other areas of assembly of motor vehicles in Australia, will be very hard hit. This will be the end of their prospects. Everyone who loses a job in an assembly plant will remember who it was who lost him his job. Claims that employment may increase in the longer term are made inconsistently between pages 4 and 10 of the Minister's statement. On page 4 the Minister says that the industry's capacity will improve even further: On page 10 he acknowledges that inevitably employment levels in the industry will be reduced by the 1990s. That is the sort of care and attention given by the Minister and the Government to this statement. I draw the attention of honourable senators to those two totally conflicting assessments on pages 4 and 10. With export facilitation provisions, the Government has gone back on yet another of its election promises. I do not need to detail that. The public leaking of the various considerations in relation to the restructuring has created great uncertainty and has added to the creation of the unemployment to which the Minister referred. Car sales in April this year, the month just passed , were 19 per cent down on those for the previous month; that is, 6 per cent down in seasonally adjusted terms on the previous month. As I said, people in the industry want jobs; they want a wages policy and they want a reduction of red tape, of bureaucratic interference. If the Government were to get out of the hair of business, that would contribute to the achievement of those jobs. This Government appears to be going down the very opposite track. In summary, we support the need to restructure the industry but assert that the fundamental restructuring must be aimed at achieving international competitiveness. I ask again: Where does this policy achieve international competitiveness? Many of the positive proposals have already been introduced by our trade competitors. Many of the things which are being done are things which would have had to be done if Australia is to preserve its position at all. But with those things being done, we will still be behind the other countries which have flexible wage policies and flexible bureaucratic approaches and which are not overburdened with costs imposed by government, particularly by State governments. For the taxpayer there is greater cost. For the consumer there are likely to be higher prices in the short term and no promise of lower prices in the longer term. For the employees there is to be retraining-but there is to be unemployment in the first place and then retraining. For the investor there is the prospect of loss of investment. One could only ask: With all of that, is it really necessary to burden the taxpayer with a token $150m of funds for research and development when one knows what the real cost of research and development in the motor industry is? Some people may get a benefit, particularly some of the component parts manufacturers. But the real benefit to the motor industry as a whole cannot be achieved with that sort of money coming from government. It is an act of tokenism, but it will be a cost to the taxpayer, added to the cost of running yet another section of bureaucracy, yet another qango. In summary, we ask the Government to face the reality of the real need to achieve international competitiveness and to attack the fundamental problems of wage and wage on-costs and their impact. The Australian motor industry should be given a better chance than this to be able to survive. Having had relatively little time to study the detail of the plan which, as I said, is very much more detailed than the statement read out by the Minister, I seek leave to continue my remarks later so that the Senate may continue this most important debate. Leave granted. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —by leave-I believe, as Senator Rae has indicated, that we have been waiting for some time for this statement. It is long overdue. It is not just six months overdue; it is six years overdue, 12 years overdue, decades overdue. If this is an indication of a rational, planned, protection reducing program for the motor vehicle industry, it will be worth waiting these six months, particularly if it has the imprimatur of the key people in the industry. That is not assured in the statement that was made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). I think some loose ends have been left as to whether he has total industry support. He has certainly sought it. He has obtained a degree of support in respect of some of the directions which have been taken. Let me point to the major area of concern. It appears from what has just been said by Senator Rae that the Minister and the Government may not have universal support. If my assumption is correct, this will be tragic for the car industry. If this policy in broad outline is not endorsed by all parties in this Parliament the stability that the industry has sought for decades will be lost for probably the next decade. In my opinion the industry is doomed if we are not able to come together and rationalise it in 1984. The industry has been rescued so many times by ad hoc measures put forward by governments of a variety of political persuasions to the point that it appears to lack direction in itself. The major enterprises within the industry for years now have not had a long term plan to which they could work. They have recognised themselves that it has simply been a matter of which group had the ear of the government of the day and which group could apply the greatest muscle when determining the direction of policy for the succeeding two or three years. That in itself has been a tragedy for industry. It also has resulted in a massive cost to consumers-not just consumers who purchase vehicles but consumers who buy goods that have been distributed for decades by high cost vehicles right across Australia. At the very least, the statement that has been put down by this Government has the long term objective of reducing the protection that has been granted to the industry without overnight destabilising that industry. It gives both the industry itself and the employees within the industry an opportunity to redirect and to take into consideration what is going to happen to their industry and their markets in this country and their potential export markets over the next decade, or the next eight years at least. It gives manufacturers the opportunity to redirect their attention in terms of where they should invest, whether it will be feasible to get into joint ventures and, just as importantly, starting from tomorrow morning one would hope, to have their employees retrained in alternative industries- Senator Watson —Such as? Senator JACK EVANS —Alternative industries within their own field, as has happened around the world, Senator. One does not have to move out of the factory to redirect all of the industry. Senator Watson —Where are they going to go? Senator JACK EVANS —The honourable senator is suggesting that there are not alternatives. I suggest that alternatives need to be found whether or not this plan is adopted because this industry is on the greatest downhill slide of any industry. Over the last five years the previous Government, of which Senator Watson was a member, did nothing to retrieve this situation. Let us be quite candid about the situation within Australia at the moment. The industry is doomed unless steps are taken. I am not suggesting that these are the only steps that could be taken but at least, in my view, what I have put forward is a rational approach. I am appealing to Senator Watson, Senator Rae and other senators on this side of the Senate to make constructive proposals to the Government on this plan and to endeavour to arrive at something which is non- partisan, something which can be supported by all parties so that the industry itself-- Senator Messner —What is going to happen at Woodville? Senator JACK EVANS —Yes, I agree, Senator Messner. Madam ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Would Senator Evans please direct his remarks through the Chair? Senator JACK EVANS —I am endeavouring to persuade the Liberal Party senators to join with the Australian Democrats in our approaches to the Government and to join with the Government in an endeavour to get this industry rationalised. The first thing that I believe needs to be recognised is that our current protection policies are costing the community $1.97 billion. That is a massive protection racket, if I can coin a phrase. This matter needs to be addressed immediately. It is not something we can bandy about any longer. There needs to be consensus across the industry and right through the political parties in order to achieve long term planning. There should not be just parliament-to- parliament planning. There are some good points within the plan that has been presented, not the least of which is the fact that it is based on consultation and a degree of consensus. The plan aims to concentrate on the areas where Australia has the skills and can develop a competitive edge. That, surely, has to be the key to the direction that we take. We should not rely on the history as it was when the Holden was introduced to determine the policy of the car industry for the 1980s and 1990s. We need to recognise the external competitive situation and to recognise the skills that we have in Australia and how those skills can be developed to the advantage, not just of the internal markets, but also of the export market. That will then pass on benefits to consumers through lower prices . Surely that is a major advantage of simply reducing the penalty tariffs that would have operated under the current scheme. That has to be a plus, not just for the industry but also for Australian consumers. Of course, we are supporting the expectation and the hope of the Minister that there will be, in time, a greater Australian equity in the industry. The evidence of that has not yet been demonstrated. We look forward to a clear illustration of how that will come about. The need for monitoring of transfer pricing is self-evident. It is to be hoped that the establishment of an automotive industry authority will ensure that that rort is not allowed in the future and that very close attention will be paid to that and its elimination. I think the allocation of $150m over five years to assist in the design of components and vehicles is, again, a positive step which will assist the industry. Senator Rae made a valid point about the inclusion of this industry in the labour adjustment training arrangements helping the employees. There needs to be instant recognition of that because it is quite evident that, whether the Government's plans come to fruition or not, the industry will retrench thousands of workers in the near future. We need to recognise that the industry, as indicated by Senator Watson earlier, is not the easiest one in which to move employees straight across to alternative areas of employment. However, that applies to a number of industries that are either becoming redundant or are changing so rapidly that it is not possible to cope with the rate of change. The Government's awareness and recognition of that, as indicated by the statement, is an important factor in looking after the employees in the industry and not just looking after the nuts, bolts and dollars that are involved in the industry . I also wish to make further comments on this matter. As Senator Rae indicated, this is necessary because of the short notice we received about the introduction of this paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —by leave-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present a report on certain regulations and an ordinance. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. At this stage I will speak briefly and then seek leave to continue my remarks later. The situation with regard to this report is that the debate on it and other matters on the Notice Paper has to be dealt with tonight. That is why I sought the early tabling of the report on these censorship matters. The report also contains a dissenting report from four members of the Committee. Copies of the report are not available to every honourable senator at present but should be available in half an hour or so. At present copies are available to each of the members of the Committee, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the shadow Attorney-General and the spokesperson for the Australian Democrats. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debated adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 29 May 1984, from Senator Messner: Dear Mr President Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- 'That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The Government's failure to develop a coherent social security policy and the punitive effect of the proposal to include the pensioner's home in an assets test.' Yours sincerely TONY MESSNER Senator for the State of South Australia Is the motion supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.06) —I move: That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: The Government's failure to develop a coherent social security policy and the punitive effect of the proposal to include the pensioner's home in an assets test. Since the election of this Government there has been no clear statement as to the direction in which this Government is tending to go in the development of an alternative policy on social security matters. In the statement of May of last year we had reference to the introduction of two measures-the introduction of tax on lump sum superannuation and the introduction of an income test for the pensioners over 70 years of age. Later in August, we had the announcement of the introduction of an assets test on pensions. It must be pointed out that it involved the whole range of pensioners and beneficiaries, including supporting mothers, widows, invalids, handicapped persons and persons in sheltered workshops in receipt of allowances. All those people would have been subject to the assets test which the Government proposed at that time. Since then we have had a series of public relations disasters. Quite apart from that, we have had an ill-thought-out attempt to justify these actions in terms of developing some kind of coherent policy. Never, though, has the Government succeeded in making clear what its objectives are. Let me take one example, first and foremost, to demonstrate the importance of that point. In introducing its assets test proposal in the Budget last August, the Government stated that it was the first step towards the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. The first question that has to be asked is: What is the main feature of a national superannuation scheme? Surely the answer to that is that it means and , without any doubt, connotes a system whereby people have universality of benefits from a national superannuation scheme. Yet, with the introduction of the assets test, there is positive discrimination in favour of a particular group of pensioners and the exclusion from the scheme of another group. That, clearly, was a statement which underlined the Government's so-called objective in introducing an assets test. Never, since that time, has the Government sought to justify its actions in any terms other than that it was seeking, in the long term, to introduce a national superannuation scheme. From time to time, as the Government flittered from debate to debate on this matter, we have had discussion about double dipping and the kinds of moral frauds, perhaps we should call them, of those who take advantage of the present system. That is one thing that the Liberal Party, in opposition, has been seeking to make clear in recent times. We have put up positive suggestions about how those things could be addressed. But the Government has failed to acknowledge those matters, until just recently when we saw in the report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel, which has been leaked to the newspapers, clear indications that the double dipping problem is the most significant aspect of the difficulties in which the Government finds itself. Indeed, the point is made in the report that universality of fringe benefits would go a long way to reverse the usage of double dipping as a means of obtaining pensions and thereby distorting the system. If the Government were fair dinkum about the kind of system it wants to introduce, if it were fair dinkum about addressing the kind of superannuation scheme that it wants in the future, surely it would address those particular aspects of the problem rather than rumble around as it has done now for nearly a year-or more in the case of the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. It should make some clear statement of its intention regarding the introduction of some kind of integrated national superannuation scheme. Lord knows, it has had plenty of opportunities to do this; but instead it has left the people of Australia in total ignorance. This has led to more and more confusion, piling more and more disconcertment on the people of Australia, as the Government brings in more and more statements as the months go by. Of course, all of this has been heavily overlaid by a direct attack by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on certain members of the pensioner community through the publication of a list of 120 so-called pension cheats. In the Senate today, in answer to a Dorothy Dix question, he sought lamely to justify where he obtained this information. But the point is that that has caused enormous concern in the community because it demonstrates that this Government is about attacking particular sectional groups in the community rather than addressing the real problems. Of course, that reinforces further our point that there has been no attempt by this Government to develop any kind of coherent policy. Let us for a moment examine the question of occupational superannuation. We are now awaiting the introduction of legislation imposing taxation on lump sum payments. The justification for this has been that it is inequitable that some people obtain superannuation in the form of a lump sum payment rather than a pension, and that the pension is taxed and the lump sum payment is not taxed as heavily. But where is the logic of that statement? Is it not true that any income generated from the investment of a lump sum is taxable? Is it not taxable in exactly the same way as the pension that is received in the hands of a superannuitant? Is not the same treatment therefore applicable? In fact, is not the proposal that is being introduced by this Government to impose a tax of up to 30 per cent on lump sum payments imposing a capital gains tax on a lump sum of capital received by people at the end of their working lives? Yet in this country we do not have a capital gains tax except when we apply it to the elderly, except when we apply it under this new proposal to the lump sum payments received by those who have just retired. It is totally inconsistent, totally incoherent and obviously does not form part of this scheme which the Government has been trying to sell us as some kind of national superannuation scheme in the last 12 months. But the Senate need not only rely on my words alone on this. I will quote from evidence given under oath by Mr Darryl Dixon of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat on 26 March. He said: That is why I think that options that attempt to change the relative emphasis on occupational superannuation are doomed to failure. I think that if you were to decide that we are not to rely on occupational superannuation you would have to work out where else that $20 billion of funds with an additional $1.5 billion per year in savings, or whatever it is, would come from. I think that growth is going to be the key to all of this. We also have claims from the Government that there is some kind of rip-off from people in occupational superannuation schemes of about $2,500m in tax benefits for contributions to those schemes. The first thing that has to be acknowledged is that that amount of money is a vast overstatement of the amount which is the net cost to the community of encouraging people to join occupational superannuation schemes. The kind of evidence that was put forward in the Budget documents last year supported that figure in some detail but it failed to take into account the tax that is generated from the revenue that comes as a result of the investment of lump sums and other moneys received as a result of people retiring who were members of occupational superannuation schemes. It is estimated, and this was given in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, that that amount of money could be worth another $1 ,000m to the Treasury. If we take into account the saving on revenue also of the use of the 30:20 rule in superannuation funds; if we take into account the fact that many people who receive superannuation from occupational superannuation schemes do not in fact use fringe benefits and therefore the community saves as a result; if we take into account the fact that if there were no occupational superannuation many people would draw on the national social security system who do not otherwise do so, that amount of money, estimated last year at $2,500m and claimed by the Government to be absolute rote, falls to well below $1 billion in my estimation. If that is so, and the Government seeks to use that as a basis for justifying the increase of benefits to the most needy, it is gambling on the wrong horse because the money that it will raise from that source will be so little, as Mr Dixon points out, that any such effort will be doomed to failure. As a result, one has to wonder what this Government is about in that area. The other matter which we mentioned in passing was, of course, the income test which was introduced for pensioners over 70 years of age. That was followed three months later by a contradictory move to apply an assets test to that group in addition to the measures already taken just three months previously. We then saw the changes in October to the assets test proposals whereby, under pressure from the right wing of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) agreed to the introduction of a leisure package to exempt boats, caravans and holiday houses from the effects of the assets test. We have now seen the Gruen proposal which introduces a threshold amount of some $200,000 to cover not just those items I have just mentioned but also the home of the pensioner. As the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in answer to a question here today acknowledged, it is a bipartisan policy in this country to encourage people into home ownership. Yet the Government's policy will discourage people from setting aside money so that they can have a roof over their heads in their old age. The policy which this Government is proposing, if it adopts the Gruen committee recommendations, is to include the value of the house in the assets test proposal. Of course, that will lead to the dilution of a pensioner's ability to look after himself or herself. We know about the effects of that particular proposal in various States and its dramatic impact in States like New South Wales where land values are relatively high. I notice in the Gruen report that there are references to the fact that only 2.2 per cent of people in New South Wales have homes worth more than $150,000; I think that is the figure. In that case it ignores the fact that many old people, particularly in the Sydney area, tend to congregate in particular parts of the city. If they were forced, by virtue of the application of this new scheme, to move out to less pricey areas of Sydney, their whole system of relationships with their families and their support mechanisms within the local communities would be destroyed. One aspect of this matter worries me very much. Single widows, or widowers, for that matter, who own a house will be caught by such a proposal since they will be entitled to an exemption of only $150,000, whereas a married couple-there being ostensibly some savings with two people living together-will have applied to them an exemption of $200,000. When we consider the price of housing in places such as Sydney and other parts of Australia, that proposal obviously will impose greater disadvantage on widows and single people than on married couples. For that reason we feel justified in putting down our motion that this be considered as a matter of extreme urgency and ask the Government to declare its position. The Opposition has had a clear and consistent approach to this matter right from day one. We have sought, first of all, to find the real truth behind the Government's motives. We have tried to expose the weaknesses of its proposals, I think to great effect. On 6 September last year we moved in this place a motion- successfully carried, with the help of the Australian Democrats-for reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare of the whole question of retirement income. That hearing is proceeding very well and we look forward to the Committee's report in August. Indeed, one would judge that the Government's best option at the moment would be to examine that report and to use it as some kind of foundation for the development of a plan which so far it has been unable to put before the Australian people. The Opposition sees that as the best opportunity for a developed system to be got off the ground. Talking about the Australian Democrats and their support of that proposal last September, they have taken a very inconsistent approach to this whole question. It has to be demonstrated that the Liberal Party in government did lift the assets test in 1976 as a result of recognition of the changes, inconsistencies and anomalies in the system than operating. We have maintained that position ever since. The Liberals have not changed their attitude on that question since 1976, and I resent greatly the implication by Senator Haines on radio in Adelaide today that in fact we in Opposition have taken a very inconsistent position on this matter. In fact, if we examine her position we see that she has jumped from stone to stone, from a postion of broad support for the Government back in May to a point of complete confusion about what she intends to do in this place. Finally, in the last day or two she has discovered to her great amazement that the real problem with double dipping in this area concerns entitlement to fringe benefits. So Senator Haines has adopted our position nine months after we put forward that particular proposition. The matter before us is of the most profound importance. It is of real concern to this community that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the tabling of the Gruen report for discussion by the whole community, and it is a pity that in the course of Question Time today he refused leave to Senator Watson to table that document. I have a copy of the document, as does just about everybody in the media, from what I can see, but I hear that members of the Government have not yet seen it and are complaining about that fact. If that is so, I believe that we in Opposition would do a great service to the community by seeking leave now to table that document, and I will seek to do that in a moment. I point out, finally, that the Gruen report includes some very interesting information other than the matters which have become public so far. For instance , the report refers to the burden of the aged over the next several years. Referring to matters in connection with pensions, democratic factors and so on, it states: When all these matters are considered together the Panel does not believe that the aging of the population over the next 30-40 years will create any unsupportable 'burden' for the community. Yet here in this place we have heard nothing but justification for the ill- considered actions over 12 months by this Minister, by this Government, and by Prime Minister Hawke in the other place, who has sought to mislead the Australian people about his real intentions, about all the measures he has been seeking to put down to destroy the security of the elderly in Australia, on the basis that we will have a tremendous burden on our hands as a result of an increasing number of aged people over the next few years. That has clearly been thrown aside by this document and that is the reason the Minister has refused leave for us to table it. I now seek leave to table the Gruen report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator Walters —Mr Acting Deputy President, under standing order 364, I request that the document from which the honourable senator has been quoting be tabled. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, I admire the attempt by Senator Walters to use this device to get that document tabled. I suggest that all it is is a device. In fact, Senator Messner quoted very selectively from odd pages of that document. The document will be made available later in the week. If we are going to use devices like that to get documents tabled, I suggest we should think about where it will end. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under the Standing Orders it is incumbent upon me to follow Senator Walters's request. I ask Senator Chaney whether he intends to move anything in this regard. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.28) —Mr Acting Deputy President, if you are not ordering that the document be tabled I will move, pursuant to standing order 364, that the document quoted from by Senator Messner be laid upon the table. I will do that because the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has accused Senator Messner of selective quotation and the standing order exists precisely to prevent selective quotation from documents. The Minister will now have to live with his accusation. I move, pursuant to standing order 364: That the document quoted from by Senator Messner be laid upon the table. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.29) —The Government opposes this artificial device used in an attempt to get this document tabled. I also reject the arguments used by Senator Chaney. My remarks were made after Senator Walters had attempted to use the device of standing order 364 to get the document tabled. This document is in fact a report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Parliament has been informed that both the report and the Government 's response to the report will be brought down in the Parliament later this week . A situation in which leaked documents are tabled by artificial devices such as this works both ways of course. All sorts of documents will end up being tabled. I have no idea whether the document that Senator Messner obviously wishes to table and that Senator Walters and Senator Chaney want tabled is in fact the full report. For instance, I can give an example of what happened. The first time that this report was purported to be reproduced in the Press was in the Age of Monday of last week or the week before. Immediately the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said that he opposed the report and everything in it . The Age then reproduced tables which were purported to be from the report. They were inaccurate and were clearly not from the report. Clearly those tables had been produced by the Panel some time before and were inaccurate and later corrected. That was not a copy of the report that was produced. We went through an episode like this once before in this place when Senator Townley, as I remember it, used the numbers in this place to produce a scurrilous document, I think, in 1975 or 1976. That document was inaccurate, not authenticated and, in fact, not authentic. Yet the present Opposition at that time used its numbers in this place to have that document tabled. I question the practice. I know it is clever, I know it is smart, I know it is a way of getting around the Standing Orders, but for that reason the Government opposes this motion. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(4.32) —Several weeks ago I raised this matter of the tabling of documents and said that the practice has deteriorated considerably in recent times. Certainly when I came into the Senate a dozen or so years ago the incorporation of a document in Hansard required the assent not only of the Opposition or the Government, depending on which side sought the incorporation, but also the approval of the President. We have departed from that principle largely on the basis of a more tolerant attitude. I believe that protocol should be observed and that the practice of having the document authenticated and given the approval of the other side of the House should remain. Otherwise, we will some day find ourselves in a position of incorporating documents that will have no particular relevance to a debate and which may well be libellous. I am not suggesting that that is so in this case, but we do not know whether this document is in fact the official report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel. We may have that assurance, but I doubt the wisdom of seeking to have documents incorporated without following the appropriate longstanding practice which requires the approval of the other side of the House. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.34) —Although I certainly respect the comments which have come from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) I find it is somewhat of an absurd situation. Senator Messner has quoted from a report he has. I intended to refer too to the photocopy of a report that fell off the back of a truck into my hands. I presume it is the same report as the one to which Senator Messner referred. Unfortunately, I will not know that until Senator Messner's report has been tabled. It is unfortunate that the original of this was a report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) but has nevertheless been leaked. If it has been leaked, if it is in the hands of some of us, if it is in the hands of the media, it is incumbent on this House to decide whether it is a genuine report. Notwithstanding whether it is genuine, it is certainly floating about. It is being discussed. Hiding it will not contribute in any way at all to the debate. We certainly support the tabling of the document. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.35) —in reply-In closing the debate on the tabling of the document I thank those contributors who have supported the motion. I think the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, may be under some slight misapprehension. The motion does not seek to have the document incorporated in Hansard. There was a practice along the lines he indicated, which I think is still current, that where an honourable senator wishes to have a document incorporated in Hansard and given the wide currency of Hansard the practice recommended by the Standing Orders Committee was that the document should be shown to the person in charge of the debate on the other side so that, subject then to technical requirements, leave could be given or not. In this case we simply seek to utilise the Standing Orders which say that where an honourable senator has quoted from a document it may be required that that document be laid upon the table. I have moved that that be done. As far as the objections raised by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) are concerned, if on the tabling of the document it becomes apparent to him that it is not the report which Senator Messner thinks it is, the Minister can clarify the position immediately. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.36) —I rise to take part in the debate on the matter of urgency moved by Senator Messner. I find it a strange and in many ways quite silly matter of urgency. I think that the matter of urgency put down for debate in this place, the performance we have just seen, and in particular the performance in another place this afternoon which arose from discussions about the assets test and during which three members of the Opposition deliberately had themselves thrown out of the place, demonstrate what the Opposition is in fact about. It is about partisan political debate. It is about the sort of rhetoric we have heard rather than rational debate on a very important subject. It is about getting away from proper debate on important social and economic problems in order to indulge in the sort of partisan behaviour that we have seen. There are two parts to the urgency motion and I think we should deal with them separately. The motion in fact attacks the Government. It attacks it first for its alleged 'failure to develop a coherent social security policy'. Secondly, it attacks the Government for what it describes as 'the punitive ... proposal to include the pensioner's home in an assets test'. I will deal first with the second part of the motion which deals specifically with one section of an assets test. Senator Messner made it quite clear in his speech that he was on about the assets test in general. I will take the second part of the motion first and then deal with the first part. The first thing for me to say is what I said in answer to a question this afternoon. Neither the Government nor I has put forward an assets test proposal which includes the incorporation of the pensioner's home. The assets test proposal which we put forward some time ago quite specifically excluded the pensioner's home. The attempt in this motion to attack the Government for putting forward such a proposal therefore is wrong. The basic premise of that argument is wrong and we quite clearly reject it. It is quite clear not only from the various leaks of the reports but also from Professor Gruen's statements on television and in the public arena that one of the recommendations of his report is in fact to include the pensioner's home in the assessment of assets. I remind Senator Messner that it was the universal opinion of the Assets Test Review Panel that in fact there should at present be an assets test. But Professor Gruen also pointed out that there are other options in that report. One of the other options excludes the family home. I make the point that these are the recommendations of an independent committee, not of the Government. They are under consideration by the Government and they will be considered by the Parliament. They will be considered by the public at the right time when the report and the Government's response to it are put down. But they do not have the status of Government or ministerial recommendations. I repeat that the premise in the motion put down by Senator Messner is quite wrong . That premise is false. It is put there quite clearly to confuse the issue and to give the Opposition a few remarks on which to attack the Government. Secondly , the matter of urgency refers to the proposal in the Gruen committee's recommendations as a punitive proposal. This is clearly a matter of judgment. It is quite clearly a matter for debate, but it was introduced here by someone who complained to me publicly, when he first said that it was a punitive proposal, that he had not seen the report and had not read the report. I would have thought that such a judgment would be best made after consideration of the report and all the arguments for and against such a proposal, not as a result of speculative newspaper articles which was the basis of Senator Messner's and Mr Peacock's first opposition to this proposal. This proposal was made by an independent committee composed of people such as Professor Gruen, a distinguished economist; the National Secretary of the Australian Pensioners Federation; the President of the Association of Civilian Widows; the President of the Returned Services League; the President of the Australian Council of Social Service; the former Secretary-General of ACOSS; a leading banker; and a leading academic from the ethnic community. To label such a proposal as punitive, without first reading the arguments and without proper consideration, is a perfect example of political irresponsibility. I remind honourable senators that the first accusation that this was a punitive proposal and the first condemnation of the recommendations of the report was as a result of a small article in the Age newspaper. At the time that Senator Messner and Mr Peacock were blowing hot and cold and carrying on about opposition to these proposals, Senator Messner was complaining that he had not seen the report and had not read it. To suggest that such a group of people would bring down, unanimously, a proposal which could be described as punitive, without reading the arguments, is, I believe, cavalier to say the least. To suggest that they would not have considered the effects of such a proposal and put in safeguards is, I believe, to unnecessarily denigrate knowledgeable and experienced men and women who sat down and did a conscientious job. They are being denigrated in a way in which I do not believe they deserve to be denigrated. Is introducing the subject in this way the action of people who seek a coherent social security policy? Let us look briefly at asset testing in general. Senator Messner brought the matter up. He said that the previous Government removed the assets test; that it never varied and never moved from the situation that this might be necessary. Some people in the previous Government actually raised this question in public statements. I quote what was said in May 1981: I think we cannot escape the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in this country who do not receive enough help, while some other people, by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on the system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. That is a quotation from an article by Michelle Grattan. That is a direct quotation from the former Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, and it appeared in an article written by Michelle Grattan. Julie Flynn wrote an article in 1981 when there was speculation that the Government was seeking to introduce an assets test. I remind honourable senators that Professor Gruen said on PM the other night that two members of his committee had pointed out that the previous Government had approached them when they were on the Australian Council of Social Service about how to introduce an assets test. Julie Flynn asked several Government Ministers and back benchers what they thought. She said: A number of ministers and back benchers confirmed last week that there is strong support in the Government-- that is, the then Government-- for reintroduction of an assets test. She could quote directly from only one person. She quoted the words of the then Minister for Social Security. She wrote: The Minister for Social Security, Senator Fred Chaney, admitted ''there is a belief in the party that an assets-based test is the only way the problem can be handled''. . . . All the ministers and back benchers contacted last week agreed that, in retrospect, the Government decision to abolish the assets test five years ago was a serious blunder. Where are they all now? Is that why so many distinguished members of the Opposition have not been heard on this subject? We do not hear them now. They have not been heard, as Senator Messner says, in almost a year. They have not been heard. We hear from only Senator Messner and Mr Peacock. Why are these people so silent? Why do they not hold to the convictions that they held when they were in government? What has happened to the realisation that they made a mistake in 1976? The taxpayers and the base rate pensioners-in fact all social security recipients-have been paying for it since. Let us not hear about a coherent social policy until we can hear about why we have had this great change of heart by people opposite. When we assumed government we inherited a social security system which, except for a period of three years, had been administered and developed by conservative governments since 1949. What did we inherit? We inherited a system which discriminated against the single unemployed because of the previous Government's failure to index their payments since 1978. We inherited a system in which payments for pensioners' children had not kept up with inflation because of the previous Government's failure to increase them in line with inflation. We inherited a system in which the base rate of pension had fallen to just over 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. We inherited a system in which pensioner renters in private accommodation were inadequately assisted. We inherited a system riddled with inequities and anomalies too numerous to name in the short debate here this afternoon. Above all, we inherited a failing economy, a lack of confidence in the business community and a general economic mess. We inherited a system which was incoherent and the people who administered it are now complaining about a lack of coherence in that system. We heard Senator Messner say today that the thing to do is to give all pensioners fringe benefits; that is the way to do it; that will solve all our problems. Why did not Senator Messner's colleagues do that when they were in government? Why did not Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle do it? Why did not Senator Chaney do it? Why did not all those Ministers for Social Security do it if that is the simple way to solve the problem? Was Senator Messner, in ministerial meetings in those days, advocating this sort of practice? If so, he did not succeed. Why is it suddenly the answer to all our problems when over all those years those fringe benefit levels fell behind the inflation rate? When we came into government we knew the system was inadequate. It still is. I have made no secret about that. We know what we have to do. We know that we have to get rid of the inequities. We know that we have to set our priorities to deal with the poorest first and we have to do this within the constraints of an economic situation which severely limits our capacity, as it would limit anybody 's capacity, to make the sorts of changes that are needed. We took a look at what had to be done and we initiated changes which would at least set us along the road to removing the inequities from that system. In the first few days of government-in fact, I think it was four days after we were sworn in-we increased the single unemployment benefit rate and we have made further increases since to close the gap between this and the standard rate pension, a gap that had been opened in 1978 and had been widening ever since. We increased the allowances for pensioners' children. We did not increase them as much as we, or certainly I, would have liked, but we increased them because we considered it a high priority area. Within the economic constraints that we had we did this. We indexed the fringe benefit levels to afford some protection against inflation. We introduced a universal health insurance scheme. We removed the taxation liability on the beneficiary's allowance which was discriminatory at the time and which we had long advocated should be changed. We introduced a spouse carers pension. We recognised the extra costs to pensioners and beneficiaries in outlying areas by introducing extra payments for those who lived in zone A. Those changes do not suddenly make the social security system perfect. That does not change the whole thing and remove all the inequities; nor does it make up for all the inadequacies of previous years. But we took a coherent and sensible approach towards correcting the severe anomalies which existed in the system then-anomalies which existed because of the activities and the failures of the previous Government and, to use Senator Messner's terms, because of the incoherent approach to social security of the previous Government. In the areas of children's services, disabilities and aged people's services, we have introduced reforms to funding and programs to ensure that funds are directed to those most in need and to introduce a planning approach to many of those programs rather than the submission approach which favoured the upper and middle income earners in the past. The changes we have introduced in the past 14 months have not created a utopia in the social security system, but we have made a start at rationalising and correcting the system. One of the things we believe should be done and one of the things that many members of the present Opposition clearly believed previously should have been done is the removal of the inequities which exist in the present pure income testing system of pensions. We needed to remove the practice which enabled people to evade the needs basis of our social security system, which is the basis of our system and has been since our system was introduced. Since 1976 when the assets test was removed, as the then Labor Party Opposition predicted, there has been a burgeoning of the industry to enable people not only to avoid the income test but also to avoid tax and to get full fringe benefits and the full pension no matter what their real income was. That situation has been recognised not only by the Labor Party but also throughout the social security system. It has been recognised by the business community in this country. It is a system which has enabled those who have received lump sum payments and who are fortunate enough and willing to indulge in evasion schemes to get the full fringe benefits and the full pension whereas those who have had superannuation payments on a weekly basis have had their pensions reduced or have frequently lost their fringe benefits. The second aim of the exercise is to ensure that there is a redistribution of funds available for payment of social security benefit to those who are in need and away from those who are clearly not in need. That is what the system was and is about and that is what we clearly stated it was about. It is also what Professor Gruen and anyone who looks at the system says it is about. Concurrently, we announced the introduction of changes to the lump sum superannuation scheme. Such changes have been recommended by the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry, by the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, and, over the years, by almost every inquiry into the taxation system in this country. A system whereby people get a tax deduction for their superannuation premiums and tax concessions at the end for their lump sums and are then able to manipulate those lump sums to get a full pension and full benefits is patently not fair and is inconsistent with the introduction of a national superannuation scheme, as all the committees I mentioned have reported. Of course, when we suggest such a change and try to introduce such reforms, people who have had an advantage from the existing system will not like such changes and will complain. Oppositions will misrepresent the situation and try to present the perception to the people that they will all be affected and that we will take pensions away from the needy and from vast numbers of pensioners. I suggest that people read the report of the Gruen Panel, which gives the lie to that sort of nonsense. What has happened is that we have had a coherent approach , and we will continue to have a coherent approach, to social security. We will look at those in most need. I refer to single parents, unemployed with children, pensioners with children and pensioners in private rental accommodation. We will look to those people and see about redressing the situation as quickly as we can . At the same time we will look at inequities on the other side of the system so that eventually we will have a social security program which will in fact provide benefit to those in need to the degree that they are in need and will not allow people to leach the system. We will look at the Gruen Panel's report. We will read it and we will consider the proposals. We will accept, reject or modify those proposals on the basis of a sensible, sane and logical reading of the report and not on the basis of a few leaked reports in the newspapers. We will not do a Peacock-we will not suddenly throw up our arms and say that something cannot be right-because we will recognise that that report was made by a competent, conscientious and intelligent panel which looked at this difficult situation. I wish the Opposition would look at the problems we will have in the future. I wish the Opposition would look at the development of a sane and sensible social security system. Until it does that, we will never have a rational debate on this subject in this place. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.56) —As has already been pointed out by the previous speaker, Senator Grimes, the urgency motion is divided into two parts. The first part concerns the failure of the present Government to develop a coherent social security policy. The second part concerns what the Opposition refers to as 'the punitive effect of the proposal to include the pensioner's home in an assets test'. Like previous speakers, I intend to deal with the urgency motion along those two lines. Senator Messner began his contribution to this debate by talking somewhat wildly about a national portable contibutory superannuation scheme and the question of universality. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, neither the Liberal Party of Australia alone nor any coalition government did anything about this during its term- Senator Messner —I was not suggesting that we should. I said that that is what they said they were going to do. Senator HAINES —It does not alter the fact that as far back as 1939 a coalition government was talking about doing something about that. During the rest of the honourable senator's speech he castigated all and sundry for changing the line of attack all the time and for being confused. The honourable senator raised the question of a national portable contributory superannuation scheme and the question of universality. I am simply pointing out that that was something that a previous coalition government faced up to many years ago. After that, the Menzies Government took away from people's view, if you like, of the taxation system the tax levy that had been imposed on taxpayers. An amount indicating what an individual was contributing to the age pension was shown quite clearly on the tax forms until Menzies removed it. That was absorbed into Consolidated Revenue and it has never really been taken into account again. It is, however, one of the reasons why some people, rightly or wrongly, believe that an age pension is a right. Those people whose memories go back to that period and who recognise that at one stage a coalition government was showing a tax levy as being applicable to a contribution for the age pension do have something to grumble about. Senator Messner also talked about the confusion caused in the community by the changes of approach by the present Government. I suggest that it is therefore incumbent on the Senate to look and see how much trouble the previous Government had in developing what Senator Messner calls in his urgency motion a 'coherent social security policy'. We should look at the trouble that Government had in developing such a policy in recent years. Senator Messner certainly objected in his speech to comments which I made somewhat facetiously on Adelaide radio this morning to the effect that, in regard to the question of means testing of pensions, the Liberals have had more positions than the Kama Sutra. By objecting to this he is apparently denying it. Yet I suggest that the facts do not bear him out. In 1976 the assets test was removed- Senator Walters —How far back do you want to go? Senator HAINES —Well, 1976 is not a long way back in this matter when we are talking about people who muddle around. The assets test was removed in 1976 and was referred to by Gay Davidson in an article in the Canberra Times as an element in the first Lynch Budget in 1976 which the Fraser Government came up with that included a different mixture which: '. . . as is now becoming apparent , has the major ingredients for political and economic disaster.' If the Opposition is going to throw brickbats at various people, it ought to look at exactly where the problem stemmed from. In the minds of most people, it certainly stemmed from that action taken in 1976 which, I repeat, the Canberra Times wrote up as having all the: '. . . major ingredients for political and economic disaster'. It went on to point out that the action in 1976 meant that the needy aged pensioners were again being treated meanly, but not the: '. . . comfortable, well off or rich aged. To them the Government hath given.' The second pensioner provision in that Lynch Budget made an even rasher bid for popularism than the Australian Labor Party's progressive abolition of the means test. It abolished the assets component of the means test for all aged pensioners. The report continued: Thus the Government encouraged well-off and rich pensioners to use various ruses to avoid income. For instance, taking lump-sum payments for superannuation (tax- deductible as contributions during working life and attracting a mere 5 per cent tax on payment), and putting this and other cash in appreciating assets such as up-market housing, or in family trusts. That is what happened in 1976. We then muddled along with an income test until Mr Peacock got in on the act on 10 September 1981. The Australian Financial Review stated: In a speech carefully tailored to appeal to all his political constituency, Andrew Peacock has attacked the Federal Budget for dampening business prospects, placing an unfair burden on low income earners and failing to honour government promises to reduce personal income taxes. He suggested amongst other things: . . . that the only equitable route to lower Commonwealth outlays would be to means test welfare entitlements. He said: 'So much of government spending goes to people who demonstrably do not need government assistance. The article continued that he: . . . specifically raised the question as to whether the dependent spouse rebate , the health insurance rebate, family allowances and the home saving grant should be paid without income testing. He also raised the possibility of imposing a means test on pensions, saying 'a fundamental reassessment of the taxation welfare system was needed if taxpayers were not going to be increasingly burdened by the rising number of income- support claimants.' As Senator Grimes mentioned earlier, a few days later an article appeared in which Julie Flynn had a look at what Senator Chaney had to say. Her article was headed: 'Moves to close pension test loophole run into trouble'. It stated: The Federal Government is working frantically to change the Social Security Act to crack down on schemes aimed at beating the pension income test. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Fred Chaney, announced on Budget night that he would be introducing legislation to amend the Social Security Act because of the growing number of schemes designed to get around the pension income test. The Government action followed revelations in The National Times that upwards of $500 million was being held in non-interest bearing accounts in banks and building societies, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in capital appreciation schemes run by insurance and finance companies. However, with the best intentions in the world the then Minister ran into difficulty. As the article went on to point out, the Government found that the changes: . . . present both political and administrative difficulties. In fact, it would seem that the political difficulties far outweigh the administrative ones because one Federal back bencher was reported as describing the moves to the National Times as 'political suicide'. Senator Grimes also referred to a report that the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Council on the Aging were called in by the Prime Minister some time in February 1982 to help the Government sell a proposed assets test. There were some cries from the Opposition regarding whether that had been authenticated. I can say to it only that I had staff check with Philippa Smith this morning whether she was involved in just such a discussion, and she confirmed it. Then of course came the Lowe by-election in which Mr Fraser had to put out a letter to all the electors in Lowe denying that the Government had plans to change eligibility for pensions. The letter apologised: '. . . for the worry that reports this week might have caused'. An article in the Canberra Times stated: Senior sources of the Liberal Party said last night the letter had been drafted by the Minister for Social Security . . . at the request of the New South Wales branch. That was a purely political decision that was motivated by the fact that the changes the Government was envisaging, which were sorely needed, were likely to upset sufficient people in Lowe for it to dampen Liberal Party chances. The fact of the matter is that in the seven years that the present Opposition was in power it did nothing to develop a coherent social security policy and contributed to the mess that we are in now. I must admit that the Sydney Morning Herald did give Senator Chaney a pat on the back on 13 August 1982 when it described him as being among the brighter of the Federal Ministers and based this assessment of his ability on the fact that: . . . he seems to be the first of them to see through a particularly dense element in Liberal Party dogma. He observed this week that a person's income was only one of the determinants of his level of material well-being. Other factors had to be taken into account, including . . . assets. This was the Liberal Party's point of view in 1982. So I do not know how, after a year and a half of a Labor Government-when it is currently looking at some of the things that the previous Government said it was looking at and then chickened out of-the present Opposition can have the gall to talk about the failure of a government to develop a coherent social security policy. By Friday afternoon, when the Government does finally bring down what it is going to do following the publication of the report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel the Opposition may be quite correct. It may be that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) takes a soft option. It may be that he chooses to do what the previous Government did, and that is to put political considerations before the needs of the majority of welfare recipients. But we are not going to know until Friday afternoon. It does seem at best a little premature, and at worst a little stupid , to start talking about coherent social security policies when we are three or four days away from the tabling of the report. Senator Teague —Which option do you favour? Senator HAINES —I am coming to that, Senator Teague. The second part of the motion today refers to one of the options that has been brought forward in the Gruen report, and that is whether to include the family home. At the moment we have not the faintest idea whether the Prime Minister is going to include or exclude the family home. If he includes it, he is going to have to take some action to mitigate the effects that this will have on people who do not own homes. The double dipping that occurred previously is just as likely to occur again if the family home is excluded, because it means those people with liquid assets are going to be able to buy their way into grandiose homes which will then allow them considerable capital assets and an exemption from having them taken into account as far as the assets test is concerned. If the Government chooses to include the family home it is going to have to make sure it comes up with some sort of system which takes into account east-west variations in property values. At the moment all of this is pure speculation. It is anybody's guess which of the three options the Government will choose. If the rumours going around this place are any indication, the Government has not even come to a decision yet. What the Government has to face up to, however-I think this is even more important than the debate on whether the family home is to be included in the assets test-is what it intends to do about the indexation of the thresholds set. I would have thought that the matter of indexation was such a patently obvious problem that the Opposition would have faced up to it before now. However, to the best of my knowledge, it has not come to terms with what could be a significant hidden agenda item in the Government's proposal and one that could do far more damage to pensioners than the inclusion of the family home in the assets test. Senator Messner —We are opposing it. Senator HAINES —Senator Messner is burbling on about opposing the whole thing. I suggest that if the Government, for probably the first time in its life, takes the intelligent step of implementing this proposal as part of its Budget in August the Opposition will have nowhere to go, since its esteemed Leader opened his mouth last year and planted both of his feet firmly in it by saying that he did not intend to oppose any Budget proposal. For that reason, the Opposition supported increased levies on various primary producers. If the Opposition does daft things like that, it is incumbent on the Australian Democrats and on anybody else to apply sufficient pressure on the Government to ensure that when it comes up with a piece of legislation that Opposition senators are likely to support because it is a Budget measure- Senator Messner —What rate would you use to index it? Senator HAINES —The consumer price index. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.12) —Wherever I travel in this country the question being asked-I am sure it is asked not only of me-is what on earth will happen about the assets test. Pensioners are expressing tremendous concern about what the Government intends to do about the assets test. Senator Haines in her contribution to the debate was nothing but destructive. As usual, she soft pedalled on the policies of the Labor Party and gave the Liberals a real blast. She did not concentrate in her remarks on what the Government has done in the past 18 months. She referred to what the Liberal Party did way back in the Menzies era. I suggest that times have changed since the Menzies era, but perhaps the Australian Democrats do not really understand that. The Australian Democrats did not come up with ideas of their own, but they never have to. There is no likelihood of their holding government. They never have to come up with anything constructive or positive. All that Senator Haines could contribute to the debate was that since the Menzies era the Liberal Party has changed its policies in regard to pensioners. She said that since the Government had been in office for only 18 months it should be given an opportunity to change its policies and muck about as it is doing. As I say, wherever I have travelled the concern of pensioners has been paramount. I do not understand why the Prime Minister is delaying the introduction of this scheme. He knows as well as anyone else in Australia that pensioners are always extremely concerned about their financial situation, about the financial plans they have made over a period of years and which they expect to be able to continue in their later years. The Prime Minister knows as well as I do, and as well as everyone else, that those plans should not be interfered with, that pensioners should be given the opportunity to plan. He is so insensitive that their wishes do not really seem to matter. Before the election he certainly professed to have a great concern for pensioners. All honourable senators remember very well the grand promises made by Mr Hawke that he would not implement policies to stimulate the economy which would thereby reduce the value of pensioners' cheques. We all know what happened. We are all well aware also of the suggestion at that time by Mr Fraser that pensioners might be better off hiding their money under their beds, and the ridicule that resulted from that statement. Government senators did not apologise for that ridicule when it transpired that Mr Fraser was 100 per cent correct in saying that pensioners would be better off puting their money under their beds if the mob opposite were elected to office. That is exactly what has happened. The media, which also ridiculed that suggestion of the previous Prime Minister, has not apologised either. He certainly has been proven correct, and those pensioners who supported Mr Hawke in gaining office are well aware of that . Let us look at the history of this matter. At present there is an income test. Upon assuming office the Government refused to pensioners over 70 years of age a paltry $52 free of an income test. It introduced an income test to apply to pensioners over 70 years, thereby taking from them $52. It would have been so simple for the Government to apply that income test to anyone turning 70 from then on. But it did not do that; it reduced their pension by $52. The Government then introduced an assets test. We are all well aware of what that contained: Pensioners could have certain assets completely free of test, but they could not have other assets. They could have two Mercedes or two Rolls Royces; they could have a house of any value; they could have antiques of any value; they could have works of art worth millions of dollars in their homes. That scheme was nothing less than iniquitous. The pensioners decided to tell the Government exactly how they felt. Senator Grimes attended the meeting at the Sydney Town Hall where they let the Government know in no uncertain terms how they felt. Following that pensioner scheme mark 1 was abandoned and pensioner scheme mark 2 was introduced. Under the mark 2 arrangements the Government introduced a holiday package of $30,000. Under that package pensioners could have a home of any value, a car of any value, and house contents of any value, but they could not have holiday assets worth more than $30,000. Any such assets that exceeded that amount were deemed to be income producing at a rate of 10 per cent. So pensioner scheme 2 was also considered by the Prime Minister to be not politically acceptable. As I have said previously in this place, the Prime Minister said to the Press, with the television cameras whirring: 'We will do away with that. Senator Grimes has made a big mistake'. The Minister for Social Security had to take the blame for the scheme because the popular Prime Minister saw that the decision taken was not so popular. Now we have pensioner scheme mark III, the pay as you die scheme. In spite of all Mr Hawke's grandiose promises, we are now left with this pay as you die scheme. He set up the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel to inquire into and report on this matter. Senator Grimes said that Mr Peacock and Senator Messner complained that the recommendations in the report were unfair and unjust, without having seen the report. Senator Messner and Mr Peacock were simply quoting from the report. Page 4 of that report reads: The Panel believes that the interim nature of its work cannot be too strongly stressed. This is only an interim suggestion, nothing more. It must not be used as a long- term solution; it is only an interim solution. The report goes on: Whatever proposal is accepted however there will inevitably be some problems and some hardships caused in the community. You bet there will be. The Panel at least acknowledged that the recommendations it brought forward will involve some problems and hardships for the community. When the proposal was first mooted, Senator Messner and Mr Peacock came out and said: 'We will not have a bar of that; it is not just; it is not fair, and we will have nothing to do with it'. Senator Grimes said that those sorts of statements denigrated Panel members. That is not so. All Senator Messner and Mr Peacock were doing was agreeing with the Panel when it said that these were only interim measures and that they would create problems and hardships for the community. Mr Hawke set up the Panel. I should like to look now at the report itself, because it is important that we know exactly what we are talking about. The preferred option is option 2, the pay as you die test. In relation to that, Professor Gruen, who is Chairman of the Panel, said: 'Well, yes, you could call it, if you like, a death duty'. However, he says quite clearly, according to a transcript from PM: It isn't in fact a disguised death duty, I'm not particularly worried if it were by the way, I think that it was a retrograde step that we did in fact remove the death duty at the Federal level. The Professor said that it did not worry him at all that it was being described as a return to death duties. Perhaps that underlines, more than anything else, exactly what were the feelings of the Professor. There are several questions I should like to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). For example, if we are going to use the home, what is included as assets under option 2? The report says that nothing would be excluded; everything up to the total of $150,000 for a single person and $220,000 for a married couple would be included as assets. Recently a three-bedroom cottage in Barton sold for $160,000 . It is absolutely incredible! What happens to the pensioner living next door to that property? One hundred and sixty thousand dollars is well over the limit on her home. Would she have to sell up and move away? Are items of furniture, curtains, carpets and so on to be included? What about bedding? Is everything to be included? What is the situation? It has not been spelt out. Pensioners are concerned and worried. Unless this is explained to the community clearly by the Government, pensioners will be very upset with the Government and the Prime Minister. They will, with all justice, put members of the Government back where they deserve to be after the next election. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(5.24) —The Government is being accused, criticised and chided by the Opposition on its failure to present a coherent social security policy and its endeavours to restrict welfare to those in genuine need. This is the umpteenth motion that has emanated from the Opposition. On not one occasion have its motions been positive ; they have all reacted to initiatives taken by this Government. We are accused of failing to present a policy dealing with social security, despite the fact that Labor has been in office for only 15 months. The conservative Liberal- National Party Government was in office for 99 months from 1975. In the post-War years a Labor Government has been in office for eight and a quarter years out of 39 years. It was not until 1976 that even the conservative Government moved on the assets test that had been in the legislation since 1908. So, from 1949 to 1976, under 24 years of Liberal conservative governments, no action was taken in respect of the assets test. Honourable senators should consider this statement: The Minister for Veterans' Affairs . . . has warned of conflict between demands for tax cuts and middle class welfare. . . . . All welfare, whether in aged or repatriation areas, should be based on need, he said . . . I warned that, with big proportional growth in the number of aged expected, looking after Australia's aged would become even more expensive. That was not the present Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, but the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, being quoted in the Hobart Mercury of 22 February 1982. There is no response from Senator Walters to that statement. I wish to refer to what other Opposition members said when they were senior members of the previous Administration. I quote: . . . there are very real problems in negotiating the marginal areas, where we have to try and ensure that the genuinely needy are helped and at the same time maintain incentives and initiatives and self-reliance . . . I shall be examining . . . that the money spent in this area is spent so as to ensure a dignified level of income support for all pensioners, while encouraging people to provide for themselves where they can. Those were the remarks of Senator Chaney, who was then Minister for Social Security, to the Australian Pensioners Federation in 1981. He said further: . . . I am concerned . . . that, since the change from the means test to the income test in 1976, there appears to have been a marked increase in the number of people, some with quite substantial amounts of money, who are contriving to make themselves eligible for the pension by participating in artificial income avoidance schemes and by placing significant sums in non-interest bearing accounts. Such practices restrict the Government's ability to provide assistance to those in genuine need. Senator Chaney went on to say, in one of a dozen such statements: It is a matter of having legislation which will catch the artificial and yet at the same time leave untouched the normal domestic arrangements of the great mass of pensioners who do not enter into such schemes. Senator Chaney also stated: As I have indicated to the Senate before, the need for this sort of legislation is simply to ensure that we can meet our objective to provide more adequately for those in the community who do not have sufficient to provide for themselves. What was the position? Under the previous Government, social security payments and pensions dropped from 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings in December 1975, when Labor was in office, to 22.6 per cent of average weekly earnings. One reason why that situation developed is the tremendous increase in the social welfare budget both in respect of veterans' affairs as it applies to service pensions and also as it applies to social security. My Department has supplied me with figures that show that the number of service pensioners, that is, veterans and dependants, is expected to increase from 212,000, which was the figure in 1979, to 503,000 in 1987, an increase of 137 per cent in eight years. Spending on service pensions is expected to increase even more dramatically; in current dollars, from $693m, as it was in the 1978-79 Budget, to $2,043m in 1986 -87, a real increase of 195 per cent or $1,450m in eight years. So this Government took the step in its first Budget of establishing an assets test. It did not include the family home and it tried to have regard for the accumulation of wealth of some pensioners. It set out to achieve essential savings so that we could meet our political commitment to raise the pensions of basic needy pensioners to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. It is anticipated that this commitment will cost the Government something in excess of $600m. The most that we anticipated under the original scheme was a saving of something in excess of $200m to $300m. What did the Government then do? It appointed a widely-based panel. It set out to canvass the options available to it by appointing a representative group of citizens. The report of that group has not yet received the consideration of the Government. But in the public controversy since the first leaked document, the Government has received the support of the Business Council of Australia for a needs-based pensions system, as, indeed, it has from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have a means test in respect of income. Is someone suggesting that to have a means test in respect of assets is somehow breaching some decent principle? Of course it is not. If assets are capable of earning income they should be dealt with in this way. To the extent that that is not happening, our capacity to meet the requirements of the genuine needy is restricted. Of course, 2.4 million people in Australia are receiving the basic pension. Three-quarters of a million pensioners who are living in rented premises are obviously disadvantaged when compared with those who live in their own home. How can we have a system under which we cannot raise the income and living standards of this basic group of people? It is said, without contradiction from those on the opposite side of the Senate, that some three million people in this country are living below the poverty line. It is our intention, therefore, to take the essential steps. Might I just remind the Senate that Mr Peacock, when challenging Mr Fraser for the leadership of the Liberal Party back in 1982, went on public record of saying that there would be a new direction for the Liberal Party. He said in respect of social services that it was 'a clear duty of government to protect and assist those in genuine need'. This speech preceded the one by Sir Phillip Lynch in Brisbane in which he referred to 'millionaire pensioners'. I have been criticised by the Opposition for repeating this statement. Mr Peacock said that claims on the public purse must be rigorously assessed 'on the criterion of meeting genuine social need'. Mr Howard has said the same. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has said the same. Senator Chaney has said the same. Sir Phillip Lynch has said the same. Senator Messner has said the same. The business community has said the same. Yet we have been accused of not having a coherent policy. Where are the policy proposals of the Opposition? Opposition members are contenting themselves with purely negative criticism of the Government itself. The assets test introduced in the 1983-84 Budget did not have any concept of exempted family home. It sought to raise income and to divert funds from wealthy to needy pensioners. This Government persisted with it, knowing that there would be opposition from the pensioner community. But we did so on the basis that the savings from that measure would be used in meeting our political commitment to raise the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. That, of course, is still our objective. We are a compassionate government. We as a government are concerned to meet our commitments to those who are in genuine need. We are taking the difficult decisions and we should, therefore, have the support of the Opposition in this respect. There is no such anomaly in the proposed test as the exemption of individual luxury items that were exempted in the first proposal. There was no proposal to include the family home. Yet the Opposition said that it would oppose what we had put forward. The new scheme does not exempt antiques, jewellery and other things which the Opposition said constituted a loophole. But the Opposition now says that it will oppose and reject the revised scheme if it is ever re-elected to office, despite the fact that it has not had an opportunity to consider the Government's proposals and it has not had the opportunity properly to read the report which is now known as the Gruen report. There are no anomalies in respect of jewellery, antiques, holiday homes, boats and all those other things in the proposed revised test which has been the subject of some public debate following the leaking of the document. The Opposition is still trying to make capital out of the fact that all pensioners will be treated equally irrespective of the form in which they hold their wealth or where they live. Before long, no doubt, the Opposition will start complaining about the invasion of privacy. So this is a classic case of being damned if one does and being damned if one does not. There has been absolutely no attempt on the part of the Opposition to adopt an attitude of helping to overcome a clear problem that exists in this community. We have an aging population. Every country in the western world has a similar problem with respect to welfare payments. Opposition spokesmen still take a view which is creating confusion, as they did in the years in which they held office. They have set out deliberately to provoke a reaction from genuine people who believe that they are going to be affected by the proposals that are considered in the Gruen report before the Government has even had an opportunity to determine its attitude to that report. In the first four days after the publication of the 1983-84 Budget document which encompassed these proposals the Department of Veterans' Affairs received some 1,844 complaints or requests for information over the telephone. Since the public debate began on the Gruen report there have been 212 such requests for information. This indicates that there has been something like an 89 per cent reduction in the number of complaints about the proposals which have not yet been determined by the Government itself. Yet the Opposition still attempts to create hysteria and to arouse emotions although the Government has not yet made a decision on the assets test proposals. It is conceded that we do have problems . For instance, the average price of a home in Sydney is $90,000. I am told by Senator Cook that the average price of a home in Perth is $47,000. So even if the various options are adopted by the Government-and that is still a matter yet to be determined-there is no way that any of those sort of people will be materially affected by any of the propositions that the Government is considering. In conclusion, I hope that eventually the Opposition will put forward a constructive attitude which can stand up to rational debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.40) -I support the motion. The Opposition is concerned at the Government's failure to develop a coherent social security policy and the punitive effect of the proposal to include the pensioner's home in an assets test. That inclusion may be in doubt at the moment, but it is clearly in the court of the Government for it to come out and indicate, if it feels that that is an unfair and improper proposition, that it will not act along those lines. There can be no doubt that it would have a punitive effect. That the Government has failed to develop a coherent social security policy is abundantly clear from the occurrences of the last 12 months or so. Anybody listening to today's debate could understandably generate a measure of pity for Senator Grimes and Senator Gietzelt because they really have taken a great deal of flak in this area. The prime mover of their discomfort and the prime mover of the discomfort of the pensioner community throughout Australia is the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Clearly the Prime Minister has contributed to the discomfort of the Ministers involved and, through them, to the discomfort of those people who should be the beneficiaries of a proper social security system. Indeed, the Prime Minister has created the somewhat disgraceful confusion about social security that has been around for over 12 months. He has made at least three attempts to come to grips with the problem. In the first place, after the Budget in August 1983 the assets test became evident. Yet, only a few months before, in an election campaign, among the many things that he promised not to do was to impose this sort of test. No mention was made then of an assets test and there was no question of his having a mandate to impose that sort of test on the more aged section of the community. Indeed, that was a rebuttal of the circumstances by which he convinced the Australian people that they should elect him. Some months later than the Budget, in about November 1983, a leisure package was introduced. That had all sorts of problems attached to it and was seen not to be satisfactory. The problems progressed further across the community, particularly across the age pensioner section of the community. There was a great deal of indecision. There was continual concern as to what their circumstances were and, more particularly, what they were likely to be. The result was that the Prime Minister appointed Professor Gruen and a group of well known and well qualified members of the community from a wide range of occupations and experiences to look at the assets test and come back with some recommendations. Although nobody has seen those recommendations officially, they have raised problems that have resulted in this afternoon's discussion. The confusion that has become part and parcel of the lives of the senior citizens of this country can certainly be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister. That is a quite extraordinary circumstance given that he is promoted in this country as a man of accord and consensus and a man of generous heart in all circumstances but particularly in relation to social security. For a moment I will refer to the general principle involved because I think there is a significant principle involved in social security. In a free society such as ours it is a right for people to accumulate a measure of assets over a lifetime and so contribute to supplementing one's income when one ceases to be an active wage or salary earner in the community. I think it is accepted that that is what freedom is all about, that one can accumulate assets that will allow one to follow a lifestyle that one may choose to follow. There is nothing wrong with that objective. Why should it be penalised? That is exactly what this assets test is doing. It is a penalty. It is a penalty on people who have paid their share of taxes throughout their working lives and it is a penalty that should not confront them at a time when they have largely ceased to be active members of the earning community. Indeed, it smacks very closely of a death duty or a gift duty which the Opposition, when in government, was able to abolish. That abolition was received with a great deal of relief throughout vast sections of the Australian community. That sort of duty does a whole range of things that are, I believe, unacceptable in a free society. It tends to contribute to the breaking up of a family unit. Indeed, it destroys, significantly economic units, which is to nobody's advantage. It certainly penalises and, consequently retards the rate of development of a community, which means that it has an adverse effect on employment and on the competitive capacity of the Australian community around the world. It is interesting to note that, for instance, after the leisure package of $30, 000 was introduced at some time around November of last year, Mr Hawke said at the National Press Club that the Government was 'concerned that many ordinary pensioners have been caused unnecessary worry by those who, for short-sighted political purposes, have encouraged groundless fears about our intentions'. Yet, those groundless fears have been the very basis of every desperate investigation that Mr Hawke and his Government have sought to carry out since that time. Were they groundless fears? The implication is that there was nothing wrong with the Government's proposal; it was rather that Labor's political opponents have generated groundless fears. If that is the case, why have all the investigations ? Why appoint Professor Gruen and others to come to some conclusions about the assets test? Why has all this been necessary if the fears are groundless? I imagine that it was made perfectly clear by Mr Hawke that they were not groundless fears when further questioning indicated that the Government had bungled the whole business. That is the truth of the matter. It has bungled the whole business well and truly for over 12 months. But the Government gave no indication to the Australian electorate that it was going to involve itself in this business in this manner. I make it abundantly clear that if the proposed assets test becomes law at any stage and involves, as recommended, the value of a home, it would be totally inequitable because there can be no doubt that the value of homes, like the value of land and farms, varies significantly from the east to the west of Australia. That is a hopeless base on which to promote this sort of assets testing and this sort of decision about the range and level of pensions that are available to a whole range of Australians including age pensioners and service pensioners, men and women alike. They are concerned, and so they should be, at the constant failure of the Government to come to grips with reality and to find for itself, in a very difficult circumstance, what is a proper and responsible social security system. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.50) —The Senate is debating a matter of urgency from the Opposition which deals with developing a coherent social security policy. But it is really a disguised urgency motion; it is really about the assets test, as honourable senators opposite have shown. Included in the motion is a reference to one aspect of one option of a report on the assets test which has not even been released yet. So the motion itself is a farce. It is fair enough for the Opposition to try to influence the Government's position on whether to include a pensioner's home when assets are assessed. But to elevate this issue to a matter of urgency is really taking that sort of lobbying effort too far. However, I am happy to deal with the urgency motion as it has been moved. Of course, there is much concern in the community about what the final decision will be. The concern has primarily been stirred up by the Opposition ever since the question of the assets test was first mooted. The stirring up of this uncertainty is just a callous and cynical attempt by the Opposition to gain political support. The Opposition knows that most people will not be affected; some will be but the vast majority will not be. Of course, the Opposition is trying to suggest that every pensioner is under threat; that is not so. It is natural that there is concern and that people want to know the decision. We all want to know the decision, and it will be made very soon. It is a bit much for the Opposition to complain about long delays since the Government received the report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel. The Gruen report was handed to the Government not much more than a week ago, as I understand it, so it is a bit much to complain about the delay since the report was received by the Government . The reference of this issue to the panel headed by Professor Gruen was supported by Senator Messner. It is a bit much for him to complain about the delay since that panel has reported. No matter what option is adopted, whether it is the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, which is sitting in the House of Representatives, the various options recommended by the Gruen panel, or some other scheme or variation of it, very few pensioners will be affected. Let us deal with the history of the assets test. It was announced in the Budget last year. It was part of the Government's policy of attempting to implement a coherent social security program. We have a coherent and comprehensive social security policy and it is a matter of adopting that and forming it into a comprehensive and coherent program. As the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, said, nobody is pretending that we have yet achieved that, or are anywhere close to it. Senator Messner —But that is not what you promised the people. Senator COATES —Will Senator Messner please let me get on with my speech and stop interrupting? Senator Messner —Why don't you tell us? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Messner is interjecting too much. I call Senator Coates. Senator COATES —Senator Messner has no option but to create a lot of bluff and bluster about this whole issue. I can understand why he is doing it. But the Government is attempting to introduce a comprehensive and coherent program out of its policy. The sooner we can achieve that, the better. The Senate will be satisfied on all its doubts within a few days. The Liberal and National parties, whether in opposition or in government, have never had anything like a coherent policy, let alone a coherent program. The only coherent aspect of their policy was to reduce spending on pensioners, to reduce outlays as much as possible in the social security area and to cut back. That was the only coherent thing they ever did. They certainly had no policy of care for those in need. The details of the Government's proposed assets test were adopted about last November or December, after much community consultation. At the time of the Budget it was announced that there would be community consultation about the details. After that had happened, there was adoption of a proposal, which was converted into a Bill and introduced into the House of Representatives. It included the lifestyle package that everybody knows about, which was in response to community pressure. It arose out of community consultation. Then we had the delay caused to the legislation by the threat of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats; so it was deferred until after Christmas. That time allowed for further community consultation and there was then pressure not to adopt that particular package because, as was acknowledged all along, there were inequities in it. This issue was then referred to the Gruen panel which reference, as I said a while ago, was supported by the Opposition. Professor Gruen and his panel have reported very recently. That report is to be tabled this week. I have not seen the report. I understand that some of the reports in the newspapers are similar to parts of what might be in the report. We have had a version tabled by the Opposition which may or may not be a version of that report. I have not seen the report, but I look forward to seeing it. I will then make my decision about which of those options I support, whether it is the existing Bill or some modification of it. The reason we are introducing an assets test is to reintroduce more equity into the whole social security system. As I have said in previous debates on this issue, the assets test should not have been abolished in 1976. We know that the previous Government, in the years since 1976, came to regret very much that decision. Following the abolition of the assets test, some people were much better off and were able to convert income to property and distort the whole intention of the income test. It produced so many inequities that something had to be done. This Government has had the courage to bite the bullet and say that it will have an assets test that is fair and reasonable. I strongly support that . It is the only way to administer fairly a social security system. I am not going to argue here about which option is the best one. There are pros and cons in including a person's house in such an assets test. I think every fair-minded person would agree that there are some arguments in favour of this and some arguments against it. Also, it is a matter of judgment where the threshold for assets is drawn. Wherever the threshold is, some people will be just above it and some people just below. But, of course, the phasing in of those thresholds means that people will be dealt with fairly. All the tests referred to are very generous. Of course, as Senator Scott said, people have the right to accumulate assets over the years and use them in their retirement. But there is no absolute right, on top of that, to a full pension. That is what the Opposition is now suggesting , that everyone should have a pension and that we should move away from pensions on the basis of need. It is essential that we have an assessment of assets as well as of income to enable a proper redistribution, to enable us to get pensions closer to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, which is our policy, and to give social security assistance where the need is greatest, such as to assist families. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they have elevated their lobbying exercise far too much in making this a matter of urgency. It is not such a matter. The suggestion in their motion is not even true; so I urge the Senate to reject the motion, and reject it clearly. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.00) —Madam Acting Deputy President, we have had demonstrated today in this urgency debate the continuing saga of the Hawke Government attacking the pensioners of Australia. More than two million Australians are involved and we in the Opposition, and I believe yourself, because of your speech on behalf of the Australian Democrats, want to bring to the attention of Government members the enormous concern of those people in all the States and Territories of Australia. Whatever the political aspects of this debate in the Senate, the people of Australia are concerned. They are ringing us up; and following the leaks of the report of the Gruen Assets Test Review Panel which have appeared in the newspapers over the last week and the television statements and debates and arguments and assessments, the Australian people are doubly worried. There has been a continuing reinforcement of the public's awareness that this Hawke Government has double crossed the voters in regard to its election promises. It is bringing down heavy burdens upon the aged, upon pensioners, upon those for whom I believe we should provide a strong, sound, coherent social security policy. In the debate today we had a clear and strong statement from the Opposition spokesman on social security, Senator Messner. It was not just an outline of the community's concern it was an informed analysis of the questions presently before the Government, because Senator Messner was able to table the Gruen report, with great embarrassment to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). In the response from Government speakers today only left wing members of the Australian Labor Party have spoken, and the only one who forthrightly and honestly put forward the view that he did not make any apology for laying this burden on the pensioners of Australia was the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt. He has been on the public record for a long time, including in recent days, as saying that he makes no apology for laying every degree of burden upon the age pensioners of Australia. He has no wish to counsel caution about the policy the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seems so intent upon, using this community committee as an excuse to overburden the pensioners of Australia. The other spokesmen, both from Tasmania-the Minister, Senator Grimes, and his colleague, Senator Coates-were apologetic and were not ready to give any options . They were not going to declare themselves; they have to be ready to jump whichever way the Prime Minister goes at the end of the week. They will be just as interested as the public at large to know what the Prime Minister has decided by Friday. When he makes that announcement, they will jump into line with it and argue for whatever the Prime Minister says. The Minister, Senator Grimes, has already done that. Back in February, the Prime Minister, without telling his Minister, went to the National Press Club and, as was outlined particularly by Senator Walters, just announced that the whole assets test was suspended because he knew that the suffering people of Australia would not wear it. Those people were concerned, and the Labor Party was copping the flak. He decided to try to pin this design upon some independent community committee. Of course, whilst left wingers are not in any way wanting to demur that there should be such a test, the rest of the Labor Party members are shaking in their shoes because they do not want to lose the support on which they think they might have a little fingerhold at the moment. The Opposition has carefully argued this matter of urgency, and in particular the need to ensure that a pensioner's home remains an exclusion from all such tests that relate to pension assessments, and that was referred to by Senator Messner, Senator Scott and Senator Walters. Given that we have only half a minute remaining and that the cases have been so soundly put, I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the motion (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter 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. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Hearn, J. M. Rae, Peter Foreman, D. J. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Ray, RobertKilgariff, B. F. Robertson, E. A. Boswell, R. L. D. Button, J. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I present the paper 'Business of the Senate and Its Committees for 1983'. Ordered that the paper be printed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report entitled 'Homelessness-a capital problem' was tabled on 10 May in the House of Representatives. It was prepared at the request of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) and arose from incidents which occurred last year. In about June of last year Havelock House in Canberra, which was formerly a hostel, became the centre of a picket line by people protesting about the Government's policy on low cost accommodation. According to the report , the people on the picket line obtained the support of the Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council for their protest. Page 1 of the report outlines the setting up of this inquiry after negotiations and discussions had taken place between the Government and the Trades and Labour Council. In a sense it is a pity that the inquiry was set up in those circumstances because in some respects that detracts from the significance of the report because low cost accommodation issues clearly needed to be addressed by the Government. The inquiry which was set up was asked in November to report by mid-December, but because of the difficulties many people had in getting submissions to the inquiry the deadline was extended to 6 January 1984. The pity of it is that from that time until 10 May 1984 the Minister for Territories and Local Government kept the report to himself and did not make it public. Even now in tabling it he has not given a Government response to it. In a very real sense a considerable amount of time has been lost. It is similarly the case with the National Capital Development Commission review which the Minister received and kept for a long time before he made it public and with another report before us this afternoon, the report of the Task Force on Implementation of Australian Capital Territory Self Government, a report which the Minister had for some time before tabling it on 10 May 1984. The report of the committee inquiring into homelessness on page 3 stated: We have not, for example, had time to elaborate our recommendations in terms of their cost, or their legislative and administrative implications. There are a number of recommendations in the report, some of which I could not possibly accept. Other recommendations might be reasonable if in fact they were shown to be financially practical and worth while for the people they are trying to help. The committee clearly did not have adequate time to look into the cost proposals. As I said, it is a pity that so much time has been lost in considering the report. I would hope that the Government would respond to it before the end of this session of Parliament because by then it will have had the report for the six-month period in which one generally expects the Government to respond to reports. I certainly urge the Minister to see that he responds before the end of this session of Parliament. The report defines homelessness and indicates the number of households which fall into that category: It may be over 4000 households or possibly even more. The committee dealt with who are the homeless people and concluded that the group includes single parents and single person households and that the young and the elderly are significant homeless groups. The report deals also with the circumstances of these people. They are on low or intermittent personal incomes, suffer from unemployment, and frequently have physical or mental illness or handicap. The report addresses a number of issues but does not specifically deal with some of the real solutions to the problem of finding the right environment and the right forms of employment that would enable many of them to live without the sort of support that is referred to in this report. I have not time to deal with the report in significant detail but I point out that homeless people must have been rather disappointed in the Minister's comment on 25 May that he was considering housing for building workers coming to Canberra. He needs to address himself to those who need jobs and homes and are already in Canberra. Parts of the report are counter- productive. The report recommends quite draconian measures as far as landlords are concerned. The consequence of bringing into effect those recommendations would be to drive investment from Canberra and in a sense exacerbate the problem . I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Task Force on Implementation of Australian Capital Territory Self Government has been in the hands of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) since early this year. I think the first part of it was made available to him on 21 February and the second on 29 March. It was not made public until 10 May this year. The Minister's tabling statement was, to say the least, disappointing in that he has not really addressed himself to the substance of the report even though, in fact, he had had it for that length of time. A number of aspects about the document cause concern. It is a useful document from the point of view of discussion and it certainly needs to be looked at by this community. I am not convinced that self-government is in the best interest of this community. I do not believe the majority of Canberrans believe that to be the case. The way to resolve that, of course, would be to have a referendum on the subject and let people make their views on the matter known, especially as the report is now available. I would not have thought that the right of people to determine how they wish to be governed was in question. I really wonder what it is that the Government has to hide. It is so adamant that no referendum will be held when previously a referendum was held and the people did say that they wanted no change in the situation which currently exists. As I said, this report is a very useful document. It highlights the questions that are unanswered. A number of responsibilities are listed for immediate transfer to a locally elected House of Assembly, but the matters about which no recommendations are made really cause the greatest concern. I do not believe that any locally elected assembly would have any bargaining power whatever with the Federal Government once the concept has been established and powers have been handed over to it. The whole debate usually boils down to a sneering reference to hip pocket reaction if finance is mentioned. I point out that this community does not have available to it the same means of raising funds as do State governments. There is no coal that I know of in the Australian Capital Territory. There are no other means of raising revenue. We are not in a position to raise revenue by way of payroll tax, which the States receive. I cannot see the Commonwealth volunteering to pay payroll tax. A number of areas in Canberra have been developed in a way that is totally suitable and welcome in the national capital but would not be appropriate for a community as small as Canberra's to run and fund itself. Perhaps one of the most significant areas is the future of the Murrumbidgee River and its corridor. It is an important river, not only to the Australian Capital Territory but also to those who live alongside it above and beyond the Australian Capital Territory. In order to maintain that river with a community this size living so close to it resources will have to be devoted to it. This is part of the open space plan. I doubt whether this community could afford to maintain that river as it should on its own. The open space plan which, as I said, includes that river is not dealt with in this report. The report does not explain how the river will be funded in the future. The police force, Action buses, the future of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and the lower Molonglo water quality control works are matters which have been left for the future. It is said that those matters are to be discussed and the arrangements determined. I do not believe that is satisfactory. The report said that the Government should, at the earliest opportunity, give a commitment to financing those aspects of this community which are national capital aspects. The Minister significantly did not do so. All he said in his tabling statement was that we would receive fiscal equalisation with the States. He had the opportunity then to say that the Commonwealth would honour the national capital significance of this Territory and he did not do so. He was not asked then to actually commit money; he was merely asked to make that commitment. He failed to do so. I think that we are entitled to wonder exactly what the Government has in mind with respect to the future of the Australian Capital Territory. I think that the people are entitled to have a say. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I am sure that debate on these documents will provide a useful opportunity for us to look at the programs which are required to ensure that Australia's water resources are adequate. It is an unfortunate fact that a series of programs, which had the support of the previous Government, were discontinued by the new Government when it first came to office. Adelaide is one of those Australian cities which has been adversely affected by that government decision. I do not think that 25 minutes past six is the time to debate that issue. I simply give an indication that it is a matter which the Opposition will wish to pursue in debate at some later time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.27) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Again, I do not think that this is the appropriate time to have a full scale debate on this matter, but I wish to put this Government on notice that the Opposition is concerned about some aspects of the Government's employment programs. I want to do that now because I think that some concerns are emerging in the community about the effectiveness of the Government's approach to employment creation. It is a matter in which debate can be difficult during a period when there is a general community wish to see employment increased, the young, in particular, given employment opportunities, and when new proposals will generally be given the benefit of the doubt for some time. I fear that we face a regional employment development scheme situation in which, again, there was the same sort of atmosphere; there was broad public support for the Government's attempts to create employment and it was only because practical difficulties emerged that criticism and, I think, sensible debate about that proposal became possible. Then, of course, the previous Labor Government discontinued that scheme. I think that there are great dangers for the Government in allowing this scheme to develop without the most careful scrutiny. It is apparent that there are some difficulties in getting available moneys spent. There are difficulties in matching some of the proposals which are brought forward and which are funded with the actual labour which is available. I do think that given the social importance of the problem and the seriousness of the situation of many individuals with lengthening periods of individual unemployment it is important that we should have very frank assessments of what is being done by the Government itself and an opportunity to examine what progress has been made. Indeed, I think there is perhaps an obligation on the Opposition to act as a spur for the Government to make sure that what it is doing is effective and where it is clearly ineffective to discontinue programs. I believe it is important that there should not be long periods of under-performance which will simply produce in the community a great cynicism about the ability of government to do anything about people who are caught in this web of unemployment. I hope that we will be given an opportunity to debate this paper and some of the issues which are emerging and which I think are extremely serious. I simply add the comment that we do face a situation in which the Government is embracing economic, industrial and wage fixing policies which, on its own prediction, will involve continued high rates of unemployment in Australia over the foreseeable future. There is no sign that the balance between the young unemployed and the older unemployed will change. Therefore, a very significant proportion of young Australians will be without work. I believe this is probably the most serious overall issue that the Government faces. I regret that in the period which remains for these sittings, with the very large amount of important business with which we have to deal, it is unlikely that we will spend much time on this central issue. Therefore, I wish to use these five minutes simply to remind the Government that there is no problem which is more central to the well being of the Australian community and there is no problem which seems to be less likely to be solved than this one. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present a report on the regional conflict and super-power rivalry in the Horn of Africa, dated April 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SIBRAA —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This is the last report prepared for the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence by the Sub-Committee on Middle Eastern and African Affairs, of which I was Chairman. This report on regional conflict and super-power rivalry in the Horn of Africa is additional to the report on the provision of development assistance and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa which I tabled in the Senate at the end of last year. A report on some observations on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa was also tabled at the end of last year. It touches on the Horn of Africa region, especially in relation to the question of diplomatic representation in Ethiopia. This report is a comprehensive account of the regional conflicts and the involvement of the outside powers in the Horn of Africa. The Horn of Africa is a very complex area in terms of ethnic composition, politics and outside involvement. The two major regional conflicts involve, firstly, the fight for independence by the Eritreans from Ethiopia and, secondly, the conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia over the ethnic Somali populated Ogaden region of Ethiopia. In addition there are a number of other smaller conflicts. There is opposition to the central Ethiopian Government in Tigray province and in areas populated by the Oromo ethnic group. There is armed opposition to the Somali Government based in the Ogaden. There is also uncertainty regarding the ethnic Somali populated areas of northern Kenya. In addition, the revolt in southern Sudan has implications for Ethiopia, because many southern Sudanese have become refugees in northern Ethiopia. For its part, Sudan hosts numerous refugees from the conflicts inside Ethiopia. Djibouti is not excluded from the local conflicts, hosting as it does some thousands of refugees and political exiles from Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. Adjacent countries in the region are involved in the troubles. Libya is accused by the Sudan of complicity with Ethiopia in causing unrest and sabotage in southern Sudan. Arab countries have been accused of aiding and hosting delegations of the Eritrean liberation movement. Kenya feels obliged to maintain its defence agreement with Ethiopia, despite ideological differences, for fear of Somali expansion. The differences between Moslem Somalia and Ethiopia, and between the Moslem and Christian populations in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and to a lesser extent Djibouti, are always apparent. The report provides the background to these issues and explains the current status of regional conflict and super- power intervention in the Horn of Africa. Most of the submissions made to the Sub-Committee addressed the issue of the Eritrean fight for independence from Ethiopia. The Sub-Committee was very careful to make the most impartial appraisal possible of this issue. The history of the Eritrean region, the period of Italian colonisation and of British administration, the role of the United Nations, and Ethiopia's conduct are all carefully documented. It is clear from the information available to the Committee that history, especially recent history, has not been kind to the Eritrean people. It is also clear that the Ethiopeans are adamant that they will not relinquish their claim to Eritrea. A peaceful solution therefore does not appear possible. The short history of Eritrea since the end of the Second World War is as follows: The British administration took over the Italian colony in 1941. The matter of Eritrea's future was referred to the UN after the war, after a four- power commission consisting of the United States, France, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union failed to agree on its future. The UN finally decided that Eritrea should become an autonomous state federated with Ethiopia, with special rights to raise taxes, appoint cabinets and government officials. In addition, a democratic system of government was clearly envisaged in the written documents. In 1962 the 'Federal' arrangement was abrogated and Eritrea was incorporated within Ethiopia. This happened despite the clear requirements of UN Resolution 390A (V) of 1950. The UN has not since addressed this violation of Resolution 390A (V) of 1950. Despite the strong legal and moral arguments advanced by the Eritreans to support their case that Ethiopia has contravened a resolution of the UN, Ethiopia remains unmoved in its resolve to maintain the incorporation of Eritrea as an integral part of Ethiopia. The reality is therefore that Ethiopia will not accept any possibility of Eritrean independence or give the region any special status as foreseen by the UN, whose original proclamation is seen as serving the interests of the imperialists at the time. African opinion sides with Ethiopia on the issue. The reason is that frontiers in Africa are regarded as sacrosanct. Many observers claim that because of the polyglot nature of many African states any granting of independence to rebel movements inside one African country would have a demonstration effect throughout the rest of Africa. Many African countries are said to be familiar with the problems the central Ethiopian Government has. Given the overwhelming support Ethiopia has in Africa on this issue, and the special place Ethiopia enjoys in Africa because of its long history of independence, any intervention by a non-African country at the behest of Eritrean nationalists would be met with disapproval in international forums. It is significant that the French Socialist Party, which had a policy of support for the Eritreans prior to coming to office, has now, after the expulsion of some French diplomats after the matter was raised, declined to press the issue further. The report is in the form of a background paper and stops short of making recommendations and conclusions on the Eritrean issue and the other issues discussed in the report. To some extent, this form of report is therefore breaking new ground for the Joint Committee. It is hoped that it will contribute to a better and wider understanding of a little known or understood region. Although the Horn is geographically remote from Australia, events there are of some significance for us. The Horn's primary significance is in the fact that it is proximate to the oil producing areas of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. It is also adjacent to the transport routes to and from the oil producing areas. Bases in the Horn allow the projection of naval power into the Indian Ocean. It is because of this that the super-power competition so apparent in the Middle East and South West Asia has spilled over to the Horn of Africa. There is not enough time for me to detail the report's contents on these matters, but two themes come through very clearly. Firstly, any temporary advantage or foothold gained by a super-power in any country from time to time is likely to be tenuous and uncertain. Prior to 1977 the Soviet Union seemed entrenched in Somalia, while prior to 1974 the United States enjoyed good relations with Ethiopia and was a major supplier of aid and military hardware. At the end of 1977, Somalia turned away from the Soviets and sought assistance from the United States, other Western countries and the conservative Arab states . Ethiopia, in turn, became dependent on the Soviet bloc and Cuba for military hardware and troops. Another feature of outside involvement has been the independence of action maintained by the host countries, despite the wishes of the outside powers. Somalia's support of Ogaden rebels and its ultimate entry into the Ogaden in 1977-78 was against Soviet wishes. On the other hand, the prosecution of Ethiopia's war against the Eritreans was initially done in a way which displeased the Soviets, who counselled a peaceful solution. In addition, Ethiopia has made very slow progress in establishing a 'civilian' Marxist political party. Other examples abound, and there is much to be learned of the mode of operation and the limitations of Soviet influence, which might have application to our knowledge of Soviet conduct elsewhere in the Third World. As I mentioned before, the report is a background paper and does not contain recommendations and conclusions in the normal way. On the other hand, it is analytical, and must therefore contain some bias. If it were to be otherwise, it would merely be a bland catalogue of uninterpreted factual information. Other matters which the report analyses, and which I have not yet referred to, include the relations of the Horn countries with their neighbours including the Organisation of African Unity countries, and a history of recent internal political developments in Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti. Because of the analytical nature of the report, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would make a response in the usual way. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has been good enough to provide comprehensive responses to previous reports of the Committee, and the Committee would be pleased to receive some feedback on this report. The Committee did allow itself to make one specific suggestion to the Government, in a report that is otherwise a background paper, and it arises out of many submissions made to it relating to Ethiopian conduct of its war again Eritrean nationalists. It is that: There seems to be sufficient substance in the allegations about human rights violations in Eritrea to warrant Australia seeking an official explanation from the Ethiopian Government. The Committee considers that the Australian Government should seek to ascertain the truth of the allegations. Mr Deputy President, I certainly support that recommendation and I commend the report to the Senate. Senator HILL(South Australia)(8.11) —I wish to speak to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Regional Conflict and Superpower Rivalry in the Horn of Africa'. This is a background report which serves the purposes of educating those who contributed to its production and now hopefully the Parliament and those within the community interested in the subject. It should, as the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Sibraa, said be read in conjunction with the reports of late last year on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean island states and the provision of development assistance and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. That latter report received a government response just a few weeks ago. The Horn of Africa, for the purposes of our report, comprises Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti. It primarily concerns us because of its strategic significance and its aid implications. As I mentioned we have just received the Government response in relation to aid, and that I welcome. Countries of the Horn are amongst the poorest in the world and we therefore have obvious responsibility in relation to humanitarian aid, particularly food aid. The region suffers terrible droughts, as it did only last year, and also the disruption by continual regional wars and conflict with consequent dislocation and starvation. We have a record in relation to the provision of food aid which is reasonable and appreciated by the recipients. We have assisted in other humanitarian programs, such as basic health care. I have witnessed the work of Community Aid Abroad in Somalia in this regard and take this opportunity publicly to commend its contribution. It is most impressive. Whilst starvation and malnutrition continue we must be prepared to be generous in our support. The more difficult question relates to developmental aid. Long term food security will require assistance in this regard by the industrialised world. Again it has been my privilege to witness Australia's contribution in agricultural developments and to resettlement projects in both Somalia and Ethiopia. The work has been worth while and I am pleased that our contribution has not depended upon the political colour of the government for the time being. The fact that Australian development aid has come without strings attached has, I might add, been recognised and appreciated by such governments. It has contributed to the good standing in which Australia is held in the region. I look forward to the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program and trust that it will not result in a lessening of our support to the region. I know that the Government assesses a great responsibility towards our immediate region but we can assist those less fortunate further away and should continue to do so. The report we have tabled today therefore particularly deals with the other major issue of the Horn-strategic concerns. Like Senator Sibraa, I have not time to detail the history of any part of the region. But let me say that Ethiopia is governed by a military government which has come about since the deposing of Emperor Haile Selassie in a violent and frightening way. Reports confirm that since 1977 approximately 30,000 have died from executions, murders or torture. The Government led by Lieutenant-Colonel Mengistu is socialist and supported by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Eastern Bloc countries. Some 15,000 Cuban and Soviet forces are present and assist the regime. A political party has not yet been formed, although as we state in the report there are continual promises that such is about to occur. Land and business have been nationalised although there is some movement towards compensation. Ethiopia comprises a population of some 30 million of many different cultural and occupational backgrounds speaking over 100 languages. Significant divisions also exist between those who are Coptic Christians, Moslems and Anamists. The Government, comprising principally Coptic Christians from the central plateau, has faced continual nationalist and ethnic rebellion. The most well known include regional violence in the Tigray province, conflict with Oromo peasants, conflict with the Afars, the Eritrean conflict and the Somali conflict in the Ogaden. I want to mention both the latter two conflicts in a moment. Somalia, formed by the merger of the former British Somaliland Protectorate and the United Nations trust territory and ex-Italian colony of Somalia, comprises principally one ethnic group-the Somalis. It has an elected people's assembly based on a one-party state. The assembly evolved from the Supreme Revolutionary Council formed from among Army and Police officers. Real authority in the country remains under the military and is headed by the President, Siyad Barre. The Government ideology is 'scientific socialism', which in Somali literally means wealth sharing based on knowledge. Extensive nationalisation has taken place. Again dissident forces exist, particularly in the form of the Somali Salvation Democratic Front and the Somali National Movement. Djibouti, or the former French Somaliland, became independent in 1977. It is also a one-party state-in this case headed by President Gouled. I said that I wanted to return briefly to each of the two major regional issues -Eritrea and the Ogaden. Independence for Eritrea is a particularly complex issue, and I commend those interested in the subject to chapter 4 of our report for what I believe is a reasonably concise summary of the history of that matter . The basis for nationhood is found in the colonial boundaries and the sense of nationhood that developed during colonial occupation. The United Nations appears to have washed its hands of the issue, and the Organisation for African Unity, as has been mentioned by Senator Sibraa, is also not prepared to consider the matter further because of the fear of disturbing established boundaries elsewhere. What is not in dispute is that there has been almost continual violent conflict in the region with much consequent suffering. The current state of the struggle is difficult to assess with contradictory claims and a great deal of supporting evidence produced by both Ethiopia and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. The struggle for the Ogaden arises from the occupation of that region by ethnic Somalis and the fact that it has been split by the colonial powers. Recovery by Somalia from Ethiopia appeared to have been achieved in 1977 with the Ogaden war before the Soviet Union-as has also been mentioned-switched sides to Ethiopia which, with massive support, repelled the Somali invasion forces to the border. The struggle is now at something of a stalemate but with continuing large numbers of refugees resulting therefrom. As stated in the report, the Horn of Africa countries do not attract the interest and involvement of major outside powers because of their inherent wealth or resources or because of their intrinsic importance but primarily because of their strategic location in relation to the great oil producing areas of the Middle East and the transport routes from those areas to the West. The presence of the Soviet Union and the East is now principally in Ethiopia, the presence of the United States of America and the West is now principally in Somalia with the French retaining a dominant interest in Djibouti. It can be argued that the Soviet Union has, however, provided some restraining influence in the Ogaden and certainly the United States of America has not been prepared to support Somalia to the extent that that country has desired. It is apparent therefore that the presence of each relates to the global dimensions of their power and not to localised aspirations. The strategic importance for Australia is therefore incidental to its support of the Western Alliance. Australia has no primary role to play in such strategic concerns. It has good relations with all the Horn countries and should endeavour to retain such relations. It should not, as the Committee concluded, attempt to take sides in the Ogaden dispute. That would be simply counterproductive, but it should continue to urge peaceful settlement and contribute to the welfare of those who are suffering. It can constructively assist with resettlement programs , and should continue to do so. Similarly, with Eritrea, it is difficult to see how taking sides can contribute to a peaceful solution. Even if the UN were prepared to reconsider its position, it is hard to see how that would in any way improve the chances for peace. In conclusion, consistent with Australia's policy of not basing aid on political considerations, we should recognise the importance of Ethiopia in Africa-its importance as the headquarters of the OAU and the Economic Commission for Africa and, I believe, move towards the establishment of a diplomatic post in Addis Ababa. The result would be a better balance of missions in Africa, better monitoring of our aid program in the region and better reporting of political, economic and strategic developments in the Horn. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Committee on Australian Capital Territory Senator JONES(Queensland) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: redevelopment of the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australian Capital Territory; redevelopment of 7th Camp Hospital, Kapooka, New South Wales; redevelopment of facilities at Darwin International Airport, Northern Territory; the redevelopment of surgical and support facilities, Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, Queensland; redevelopment of surgical and diagnostic facilities, Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales; supplementary report relating to the provision of navigational aids, Hydrographers Passage, Great Barrier Reef; and development of Royal Australian Air Force Base, Tindal, Northern Territory Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on proposals for variations of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs, 82nd series, second report. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator REID —The tabling statement sets out in detail the matters with which the Committee has dealt and refers to one matter that the Committee has deferred , namely, a bicycle path across the Jerrabomberra Wetlands. The Committee wishes to receive more evidence in relation to that matter. The only other matter to which I wish to draw attention is the growing problem of parking in the Civic area. The Committee referred to that matter in great detail a couple of weeks ago in its report, on the 81A series, and it is mentioned again in this report. I shall not deal more fully with those matters this evening. I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The report I have just tabled recommends approval of 15 items from the 82nd Series of Variations to the City Plan and involves work valued at $4.5m. The Committee approved two items in the series in its First Report tabled on 3 May 1984. Only one item, Variation 8 relating to a cycleway from Kings Park to Telopea Park via Jerrabomberra Wetlands, now remains outstanding from this Series. The Committee has deferred this item while further evidence is taken on the proposal. I wish to comment on only three of the variations in this Report. Firstly, Variation 2, Hawker, which was deferred in the First Report, is now approved by the Committee. The supplying of misleading information on this variation by the National Capital Development Commission which led the Committee to defer the variation and which led the objectors to the proposal to have a false expectation of what their objection might achieve, has been explained by NCDC. The Committee asks that NCDC be more careful in the information it provides about the extent to which its proposals can be changed. In cases where people are mistakenly informed explanations should be provided to those affected as soon as it is realised that a mistake has been made. While the Committee recognises the level of concern of the objectors about the creation of a ''T'' intersection opposite their properties, the importance of providing urgently needed residential blocks and the lack of suitable alternative access proposals means that, on balance, the Committee believes the variation should be approved. The only other variation in this Report about which an objector gave evidence to the Committee was Variation 17, Macarthur. The objection was based on road safety, ecological and personal grounds. The Committee believes that the road safety and ecological aspects of the variation as proposed by the NCDC are satisfactory. With regard to the objector's personal concerns, it was unfortunate that the objector was not informed by the former leasee of land use proposals for the area opposite his block. The Committee suggests that the NCDC examine its public consultation procedures to see if it is possible to inform people in the objector's position of proposed land use policies in areas in which they intend to buy. As with the variation discussed earlier, the Committee , while being fully aware of the concern of the objector at the creation of a '' T'' intersection opposite his property, has approved the variation on the basis of other important considerations. In relation to Variation 6 which provides access to the site of the proposed Australian Federal Police Headquarters, the Committee reiterates its concern, expressed in the 81A Series Report, about the lack of car parking facilities in Civic. The Committee was informed that the Australian Federal Police Building and the White Industries Development together would provide additional office space equating to 40 per cent of the available space now in Civic. The Committee believes the long term planning implications of the new developments need to be recognised and adequate provision made for them. The Committee therefore asks that the second recommendation of its 81A Series Report, which recommended measures to deal with the significant additional demand for access to Civic generated by these new developments, be implemented urgently. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to repatriation and related matters. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(8.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the restructuring of the repatriation determining system following the Government's consideration of report No. 20 of the Administrative Review Council tabled in the Senate by my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on 16 November 1983. Background The repatriation system is now 70 years old. It had its beginnings in the original War Pensions Act 1914. By the end of World War I the original War Pensions Act and the Repatriation Act 1917 provided the origins of the present system. The first and only total review of the system led to the enactment of the then Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1920 repealing the wartime enactments and providing the basis of the present system. Subsequent reviews and legislative action, such as the review by the joint parliamentary committee in 1943, related to specific aspects of the legislation. There have been examinations of the system subsequently, such as that by the Senate Select Committee on Health and Welfare in 1973 and the independent inquiry into the repatriation system by Mr Justice Toose, which reported in June 1975, but no overall legislative action ensued. On assuming office when this Government came to power, I continued the initiative which had been commenced by my predecessor, Senator Messner, who had set up an advisory committee of representatives from ex -service organisations to advise on a review of the overall legislation for the purpose of consolidation and simplification. I pay tribute to the action taken by Senator Messner in initiating this large-scale review. The Administrative Review Council had already initiated its review of the determining system which led to its report No. 20. That report was circulated to the members of the Advisory Committee to enable them to comment. I arranged for a wide circulation of both the Council report and the report of the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review and particularly of the recommendations in those reports. They were distributed throughout ex-service organisations generally, even to circulation at sub-branch level in organisations such as the Returned Services League. Views from the various organisations have come to hand and have been taken into account. I might say that the preponderance of the views submitted to me has been in favour of the reforms that both reports proposed. There have been some criticisms, but these have been in the minority. This Bill represents the first stage of the Government's consideration of those reports and provides for the reform of a determining system that had its beginnings in 1920 but which has not been overhauled as a total system since then. I should explain to honourable senators at this stage that responsibility for decision-making within the repatriation system lies with the Repatriation Commission, an independent statutory authority. It is not the Minister, or the Department of Veterans' Affairs, that has the power of decision-making. The Department of Veterans' Affairs, through the Secretary, is responsible for claims investigation and for the provision of staff to enable the Repatriation Commission to carry out its statutory duties. Today there is a large body of administrative law well developed and in place in the Commonwealth. It is timely to bring the repatriation system into line with contemporary trends. The Government has taken care to ensure that the special position of veterans which has developed in the repatriation system over the years continues to be recognised, as I shall explain to honourable senators when outlining the general provisions of this Bill. Administrative Review Council Report Criticism As honourable senators will be aware, the Administrative Review Council submitted its report on its review of pension decisions under repatriation legislation to the Attorney-General in September of last year. The Attorney- General tabled this report in the Senate on 16 November 1983. The Bill now before the Senate makes amendments to the Repatriation Act 1920, the Interim Forces Benefits Act 1947, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956 , the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 to incorporate proposals developed by the Government in response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Administrative Review Council report. The ARC report is divided into three parts. In Part I, certain features of the present repatriation system are discussed, including the expenditure involved in providing an extensive range of pensions, benefits, services and allowances under repatriation legislation and the financial importance of these benefits to veterans and their dependants; the large number of decisions taken annually by determining authorities; the variety of means whereby an adverse decision may be reviewed or reconsidered; and the onus and standard of proof required by the legislation which are particularly favourable to claimants. Part II of the report focuses on deficiencies in the existing system and the urgent need for reform. Deficiencies identified by the Council include the following: Primary decisions are often based on incomplete evidence because there is insufficient encouragement to the claimant to bring forward all available evidence as part of the initial claim for pension; claimants are frequently not given adequate explanations of the reasons for decisions; there is often inadequate representation of claimants at the review or appeal stages; there is a multiplicity of means by which primary decisions can be appealed or reviewed. The consequences of these deficiencies are summarised by the Council as being a low acceptance rate of claims at the primary level, with an unnecessarily large number of cases proceeding for review. The report concludes that hearings before the Repatriation Review Tribunal are often really primary consideration of at least some evidence rather than in the nature of a review. The most acute effect of these deficiencies is identified as undue delay in the final disposition of claims for pension. The Government acknowledges the criticisms of the existing repatriation system by the Administrative Review Council. In particular, it agrees that the delays in the disposition of claims for compensation pension are totally unacceptable. My Department collects statistics on the average times taken to process claims at each level in the determining system. These average times taken can vary from State to State and from one period to another and, therefore, can be misleading. However, I can assure honourable senators that in far too many cases the time delays are staggering and grossly unfair to our veterans and their dependants. For the information of honourable senators, I cite a typical case which is illustrative of the delays existing in the present system. The example has been selected at random. On 14 September 1978 a veteran of World War II made a claim to have a particular incapacity accepted as service related. This claim went to a Repatriation Board and was rejected on 11 May 1979. The veteran exercised his right of appeal to the Repatriation Commission on 29 June 1979. The appeal was considered by a delegate of the Commission on 23 September 1980, some 14 months later. The Commission dismissed the appeal. The veteran than exercised his right to have the Commission decision reviewed by the Repatriation Review Tribunal. His application for review by the RRT was made on 15 July 1982. The matter came before the RRT and was finalised, in his favour, on 21 February 1983. I stress that this case did not raise any exceptional, factual, or legal issues. It is but an otherwise unremarkable example of the time taken to process a claim for disability pension through the three-tiered system of determination and review. There are several reasons for the delays in finalising claims and applications for review. First, it needs to be stressed that a significant proportion of the Australian population looks to the repatriation system for recognition of legal entitlements to repatriation disability pension, service pension, medical treatment and other benefits. At December 1983 there were still approximately 9, 700 surviving World War I veterans at an average age of 88 years; 524,100 World War II veterans at an average age of 65, excluding 2,800 who also served in World War I; 15,300 veterans of the Korea-Malaya campaigns at an average age of 48, excluding 8,900 who also served in World War II; 41,700 Vietnam veterans at an average age of 39, excluding 3,900 who had served in previous campaigns; and over 75,000 veterans of the peacekeeping, monitoring and observing forces since World War II and peace-time forces since December 1972. Some 166,300 veterans and 240,800 dependants are now receiving disability pensions. In addition, there are 369,700 service pensions in payment to veterans and dependants. There has also been a dramatic increase in the level of claims in recent years, which has not been matched by a sufficient increase in staffing resources in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to meet the extra demand for pensions, treatment and other services. To assist in honourable senators' understanding of the trends in claims for disability pensions, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table summarising these trends since 1978-79: Leave granted. The table read as follows- SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN RELATION TO DISABILITY PENSIONS Percentage Claims Percentage Applications Percentage First over for new over for pension over claims prev. year disabilities prev. year increase prev. year 1978-79 3,698 . . 9 842 . . n.a. . . 1979-80 4,146 +12.1 8,399 -14.7 9,885 . . 1980-81 3,696 -10.9 9,453 +12.5 8,762 -11.4 1981-82 4,286 +16.0 10,902 +15.3 9 ,987 +14.0 1982-83 5,842 +36.3 14,994 +37.5 12,599 +26.2 1983-84 (est.) 6,900 +18.1 17,700 +18.0 15,000 +19.1 Senator GIETZELT —As shown in the table, 1982-83 saw a sharp increase in the number of disability pension claims, with first claims rising by 36.3 per cent over the previous year, claims for the acceptance of new disabilities by 37.5 per cent and applications for pensions increase by 26.2 per cent. These claims are increasing by a further 18 per cent to 19 per cent in 1983-84. Since the repatriation determining system was opened to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia in 1979, decisions of that Court have had a significant effect on the success rate enjoyed by claimants. Following the precedents set down by the Court, determining authorities at all levels have applied the very generous onus and standard of proof and this has resulted in higher approval rates at the board, commission and tribunal levels. As veterans have become aware of the generous disability provisions that apply in respect of their service in the forces, they have been encouraged to test their entitlement for disability pension. There is no intention in this Bill to restrict present eligibility for pension or to discourage veterans from applying for their legal entitlements. Additionally, complexities have developed that make the determination of disability pension claims more time-consuming. The lengthening time since the wars and the ageing and declining health of the veterans population have made claims investigation more complex. Some recent judgments in repatriation cases have emphasised the need for better investigation of claims. Developments in the general area of administrative law have stressed the duties that lie with decision-makers when considering individual claims for benefits arising from statutory entitlements. The duty to provide detailed written reasons to explain claim determinations has also been emphasised by the legislature and the courts. The New Determining System The Government accepts the ARC's conclusion that the deficiencies in the present determining system prevent it from best serving the interests of veterans and their families. The Government, therefore, with minor exceptions which I shall mention shortly, has adopted the three-tiered framework for decision-making and review recommended by the ARC. This Bill provides the legislative framework for the restructured determining system. Primary Decision-Making The ARC's first recommendation is that Repatriation Boards should be abolished and the Repatriation Act 1920 amended to provide that all claims for disability pension should be determined in the first instance by delegates of the Repatriation Commission. This same conclusion was reached by Mr Justice Toose in the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System which was presented in 1975. At present primary decisions concerning such pension claims are made by three-member repatriation boards. In the ARC's view the involvement of multi-member, independent boards at the primary stage is an unnecessary expenditure of resources. Single decision-makers can deal with more cases more quickly. The use of delegates of the Repatriation Commission rather than, for example, single members of the present repatriation boards, will enable the Commission's positive attitude to be injected in the process at an early stage. The Government has accepted these arguments. It is intended that disability pension claims will be determined in the first instance by an officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs acting under delegation from the Repatriation Commission. This will accord with modern administrative practice whereby initial decisions are made by a single person under delegation. For example, the attention of honourable senators is drawn to the decision-making practice under the Social Security Act 1947. Delegates will have the same powers as the present Boards in considering claims for pension. They will be required to have regard to information provided by the claimant together with information obtained by my Department, such as up-to-date medical reports or details of a veteran's service history, when the claim is investigated. To ensure that primary decision-makers have all the available relevant evidence before them, the ARC suggests in its Recommendations 4 and 5 that delegates of the Commission be empowered to seek additional information by informal interview with the claimant or applicant. The claimant may also request an opportunity to discuss any aspects of the pension claim. The Government agrees with these proposals. For veterans or dependants living in country areas, telephone calls will be available at the cost of a local call through the 008 telephone facility . In line with current practice delegates will supply to claimants written reasons for all determinations made in respect of pension entitlements or assessments. Review of Decisions-Intermediate Level of Review The ARC recommends that a statutory review body be established to review on the merits of the case primary decisions made by delegates of the Repatriation Commission on claims for pensions. The Government agrees. Present procedures provide for a review by a single delegate of the Commission of a decision by a three-member Repatriation Board. In effect, the Bill provides for a reversal of the present system so that decisions by single delegates will be reviewed by a three-member statutory review body. This intermediate review body will be known as the Veterans' Review Board. This title identifies clearly the Board's function of reviewing the Commission's decision in the light of all the evidence available at the time of review. In the language of administrative lawyers, proceedings before the VRB will be hearings de novo, a complete rehearing of the claim. The VRB will consist of a principal member, senior members and members appointed on either a full time or part time basis by the Governor-General for terms of up to five years. Members will be eligible for reappointment until they reach 65 years of age. The Government will continue its efforts to have women represented on the VRB as well as on other repatriation determining authorities. In carrying out its functions, the VRB will consist normally of a panel of three members including the principal member or a senior member, a Services member and one other member. The Services member is to be a person appointed to the VRB from a list of names submitted to the Minister by organisations representing ex-service persons or their dependants. In special circumstances, subject to prior approval by the Minister, the principal member will be empowered to constitute the VRB by a senior member or member sitting alone. This may be of advantage if workloads cause unnecessary delays in the disposal of cases. Honourable senators will note from their copies of my speech that the preceding paragraphs have been amended in regard to the reference to Services members of the Veterans Review Board. The draft Bill originally provided alternative methods of appointment for Services members. I had proposed that they could have been appointed from lists of names submitted by ex-service organisations, or from persons who were or have been members of the Defence Force, even though their names were not contained in lists submitted by ex-service organisations. In my final consideration of the Bill, and after consultation with the National President of the Returned Services League of Australia, I have deleted that alternative provision so that Services members now would have to be appointed from lists of names submitted by ex-service organisations. This preserves the approach adopted in the present legislation. The Bill has been amended in this respect and honourable members will see these amendments which I have made to clause 19 in respect of the proposed sections 107VA at page 18 and 107VZC at page 29. The explanatory memorandum has also been amended where appropriate. The opportunity has also been taken, on the advice of the First Parliamentary Counsel, to make a minor punctuation amendment in clause 19 of the Bill in respect of the proposed section 107VJ at page 23. The VRB will consider applications for review by a claimant dissatisfied with any aspect of a decision by the Repatriation Commission. ARC recommendation 2 proposes automatic referral to the VRB where an entitlement claim is refused or an application for an increase in pension is declined, with the claimant being required to notify the VRB within three months of an intention to proceed. In other circumstances a dissatisfied claimant would be required to make a formal application for review to the VRB. In formulating procedures for review at the intermediate level, the Government considered it preferable to adopt a uniform approach to all claims. It was also considered reasonable to expect claimants to indicate an intention to seek review by the VRB before significant administrative resources were committed within the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the processing of reports on the facts of the case for consideration by the VRB. It is not unusual for a statement of reasons to satisfy a claimant that there is no basis for approving a claim-for example, the claimant may not have qualifying service. In such circumstances automatic reference to the VRB seems wasteful and would add to delays. The Bill provides that, when a claim is rejected in whole or in part, a claimant will be advised of the right of review by the VRB at the same time as the adverse decision, with reasons, is given. The claimant will be asked to indicate by ticking a box on a pro forma card whether he or she wishes to proceed to the VRB. A claimant will have 12 months in which to lodge an application for review of a Commission decision rejecting a claim for pension. Where the Commission refuses to grant an application for increase in the rate of pension the time limit will be three months, the same limit as in the present legislation. Upon receipt of notification of intention to proceed or of a formal application for review, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be required to arrange for a report to be prepared of all available relevant evidence. The Bill provides that this report will be sent to the claimant for comment. Thus the claimant will have an opportunity to correct factual errors or to supply additional information in support of the claim. This procedure is aimed at ensuring that the whole of the evidence relevant to the review will be before the VRB. The claimant will have 28 days, or a longer period if requested, to comment on this report. At the expiration of the relevant period this report and any additional information will be sent to the VRB. At the VRB a claimant will have the opportunity of an oral hearing. Country people will be given the option of a telephone conference hookup. A claimant will also have the right to be represented by a lay advocate if desired. Only if a claimant fails to advise of his or her intention to attend or be represented at a hearing will the review proceed in his or her absence. As the original decision-maker, the Repatriation Commission will have a right to be represented at a VRB hearing. Representation will be on the same basis as allowed to claimants. ARC recommendation 12 is to the effect that no restrictions should be placed on a claimant's freedom to be represented by a person of his or her own choice. The Government has considered this recommendation in the light of the views expressed by the Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review. At page 18 of its report, the Committee expressed the view that legal practitioners should not appear before the VRB. The Government accepts that view and the Bill provides that a claimant or the Commission may not be represented before the VRB by a legal practitioner or by a person who has a degree in law. Consistent with current administrative law practice, the VRB will be able to affirm, vary or set aside the Commission decision under review. The Board will be required to supply written reasons in support of its decision. Final Review on the Merits In its report, the ARC expresses the view that a two-tiered system of review is desirable in a large volume jurisdiction such as in repatriation pension matters . The Council sees the roles of the review bodies as complementary. It is believed that many appeals will be resolved at the VRB by relatively expeditious , economical and informal means of review. It was considered necessary, however, to provide a final review tribunal on the merits which would provide an opportunity not only for individual cases to be considered in greater depth but also for consideration to be given to the development and enunciation of principles of general application for the future guidance of primary decision- makers and the VRB. After much discussion of the options available, the ARC recommends that the present Repatriation Review Tribunal be abolished and jurisdiction to review decisions of the VRB be conferred on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Government has accepted its arguments. The Bill confers full jurisdiction for repatriation pension matters on the AAT. Previous governments have cultivated the growth of the AAT as the senior Commonwealth administrative review tribunal. Over the years the AAT has assumed jurisdiction for matters previously handled by specialist tribunals. It has built a reputation for the quality of its decision-making. It has provided landmark decisions in many areas of Commonwealth administration offering guidance to primary decision-makers. The Government is convinced that the AAT can provide the necessary guidance for decision-makers in the repatriation area. The Government does recognise, however, that there are special factors in the repatriation system. It is proposed that a special repatriation division be established within the AAT. Again, this is consistent with the recommendations made by Mr Justice Toose in 1975. The Government will seek to appoint to this division members with special expertise and experience relevant to veterans' service conditions and post-service situations. It will consult with veterans' organisations in making these appointments. Access to the Courts Since 1979, the legislation has provided for a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on questions of law from decisions of the Repatriation Review Tribunal. Appeals have been taken to the Court by the Repatriation Commission and by unsuccessful claimants. Ex-service organisations have indicated that they strongly favour the retention of this right to appeal to the Federal Court. Although this Bill repeals Part IIIC of the Repatriation Act, which established this right of access to the Court, the right will not be lost. Sections 44 and 45 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 make similar provision and those sections will apply to decisions of that tribunal in this jurisdiction. Right of access to the Court on questions of law, therefore, will remain on a similar basis to that provided for in the present legislation. Internal Review While recommending the abolition of the Repatriation Commission's appellate function under section 28 of the present Repatriation Act, the ARC report favours the continuation of section 31 of the Act which allows the Repatriation Commission to review a decision of its own motion at any time. The Council recognises the obvious benefit of the Repatriation Commission being able to reverse a primary decision of its delegate without having to appeal that decision to a review body. Not only does the power enable the Commission to exercise a quality control function but it also has the advantage of permitting the Commission to concede a claim which is subject to an application for review at the VRB or the AAT. Such flexibility, the Council points out, can be a positive means of reducing delays in the system. It needs to be noted, however, that the present section 31 has been interpreted widely by the Federal Court of Australia so as to confer an enforceable right on claimants to seek further review. In reality, it has become an additional and unintended review level so that there is now an indeterminate number of avenues of having the same claim reconsidered. The Bill ensures that the Repatriation Commission's power to review a decision does not confer on claimants an enforceable right to further review unless the Commission uses the power to vary or revoke a previous decision that is favourable to a claimant. In those circumstances a right of review will lie to the VRB. Service Pension Determinations There is not at present any right to external review on service pension claims, except in respect of the question of whether a claimant for service pension is permanently unemployable. The ARC report recommends that the applicants for service pension be granted the same appeal rights as are available to claimants for other repatriation pensions-that is, a right of review from a primary decision by the Repatriation Commission to the VRB and a subsequent right of review from the VRB to the AAT. The Government supports this approach in principle. However, the potential number of service pension appeals could throw a huge burden on to a fledging VRB which will inherit a backlog of disability appeals from the present system. Until the new determining system is settled in its operation, the Government has decided to adopt a flexible internal review mechanism for service pension decisions at first instance. Primary decisions will be subject to review by a senior delegate of the Repatriation Commission upon request from a dissatisfied claimant. The Bill provides that a right of review from this Repatriation Commission decision will lie to the AAT. This will provide the AAT with the opportunity for settling principles in the service pension area consistent with the principles applicable in the social security age and invalid pension system. Timing of Introduction It is proposed that the new determining system will come into operation from 1 January 1985. The transistional provisions of the Bill provide for outstanding matters at the operative date to be handled as follows. Claims received but not yet determined at first instance will be decided by a Repatriation Commission delegate. Appeals to the Repatriation Commission in its appellate jurisdiction and applications for review to the Repatriation Review Tribunal in disability pension matters will be treated as applications to the VRB. An appeal will then lie to the AAT. Appeals or applications for review on service pension claims will be handled as appeals to the Repatriation Commission. Decisions by the Repatriation Commission after 1 January 1985 will be subject to review by the AAT. Under the present legislation there are no time limits imposed on the lodgement of either initial claims for disability pension or applications for review. This approach has created serious administrative difficulties, particularly at the review stages. In some cases, claimants have decided to appeal many years after an initial adverse determination was made. Review of such cases has to be delayed to allow up-to-date evidence to be obtained. In such circumstances, the review process is a misnomer since the review body is considering mostly fresh evidence. As I have mentioned previously, it has been decided to impose a 12-month limit on a claimant's right to seek review at the VRB of a claim for pension rejected by the Repatriation Commission. This limitation will apply only in respect of decisions made by delegates of the Repatriation Commission after the operative date. Under the general provisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, an applicant has 28 days in which to apply for review of an adverse decision. This Bill provides for the general time limit to be extended to three months in repatriation matters. Outside this three-month limit, late applications will be able to be considered by the Tribunal up to 12 months after the date of receipt of the adverse decision. Financial Impact The estimated cost of disability and service pensions for 1983-84 is $2,023m. It is estimated that this will increase over the next few years, with the total cost of pensions in 1986-87 being $3,213m. The cost of maintaining the present determining system, which is estimated at $7.628m for 1983-84, could rise to $13 .243m by 1985-86. Initially, the new determining system will involve additional costs. If introduced from 1 January 1985, these costs will be incurred largely in the first 18 months of operation. Clerical staff will be needed to process the backlog of claims. There will be extra costs in setting up the Veterans' Review Board and the training of staff across all levels of the system. Some costs will be saved by the abolition of the Repatriation Review Tribunal but these will be offset by the extra costs in the AAT. Once the determining system is fully operational, it is expected that some savings in administrative expenditure will be achieved. Improved decision-making at the primary level, based on better investigative processes and precedents flowing from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, should result in a reduction in the number of appeals. Restrictions on the continual re-opening of claims will also have an effect. The estimated full year cost of resources to implement the new determining system is $21m. Much of the additional expenditure will be for additional staff to reduce delays in determining claims and appeals. It is in the hands of the Senate to act to reduce the backlogs and delays in the repatriation system. If this legislation is passed during the present sitting, immediate action can be taken to create positions and offices, to recruit to them and to train the successful applicants for departmental positions, Repatriation Commission delegates and the Veterans' Review Board so that they can begin operating on 1 January next year. If the Senate does not pass the legislation, this timetable will slip and delays and backlogs will continue for longer than necessary. There is no good purpose in persisting with the present determining structure which is unwieldly, slow and wasteful of resources and time. Failure to effect passage of the Bill by the Senate can only be to the detriment of our veteran population. The saying 'justice delayed is justice denied' takes on special meaning when we consider the age of veterans of the world wars. The thrust of the Government's initiatives is aimed at improving the repatriation system and, in particular, ridding the system of the present delays and unnecessary frustrations. Failure to act on this legislation will leave the system in its present unsatisfactory state to the detriment of veterans and their dependants. Further Reforms Contemplated The present changes to the determining system will not, by themselves, correct all the problems in the rehabilitation area. One of the basic problems is the legislation itself. Originally the Act was drafted to deal with the circumstances of veterans on their return from World War I. Patchwork amendments were made subsequently to cater for veterans of World War II and the later conflicts. No serious attempt has been made, until now, to consolidate and update the provisions of the legislation to reflect the changing circumstances of the veteran population. In some areas the legislation is inconsistent and the provisions are open to wide or uncertain interpretations not necessarily intended by the legislature. In the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System presented in 1975, Mr Justice Toose commented: There can be no doubt that the various provisions as now presented are unnecessarily complex and cumbersome and must militate against public understanding, consistent and effective interpretation and administration of the legislation. Earlier, the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, in its report on repatriation, recommended simplification and clarification of existing provisions. The present Government continued the review which had been commenced by my predecessor. To undertake the exercise, a review team was set up within my Department and an Advisory Committee on Repatriation Legislation Review was established. This Committee, which comprised representatives from the major ex- service organisations, was to advise me on matters arising in the proposed consolidation and review of repatriation legislation. The Committee did not have a charter to recommend increases in repatriation benefits as these are matters for the Government to consider in the annual Budget deliberations. The Committee reported to me in November 1983 and I tabled the report on 15 December 1983. I also arranged for the report to be circulated widely among the veteran community for comment. While I am unable to accept all the recommendations contained in the report, I do believe that it provides a sound, constructive basis for reform and the Government intends to introduce legislation for a new veterans entitlements Act. The intention of the proposed legislation is to consolidate and simplify the provisions relating to various repatriation benefits available to veterans and their dependants. It is also intended to remove outmoded and discriminatory provisions in the present legislation. All veterans, whether they served in World War I, World War II or the later conflicts such as Korea, Malaya/Borneo or Vietnam, will be subject to the same uniform eligibility provisions in respect of compensation pension. It is proposed also to set out in the legislation the criteria to be applied in determining the rate of compensation payable for accepted war-related disabilities. For veterans whose service-related disability does not prevent them working, the general rate of pension payable will be assessed according to guidelines which will be tabled in the Parliament and made available for all interested persons to see. Additional payments will be made in circumstances where a service-related incapacity prevents a veteran from continuing to undertake remunerative activity. These higher scales of pension will continue to be known as the intermediate rate pension and the special rate or T and PI pension. The definition of a child of a veteran will be broadened to embrace the concept of financial dependency rather than the concept of custody, care and control which applies in the present legislation. This is thought to be a more equitable approach consistent with today's social requirements. It will have the effect of extending eligibility to some children. It is also intended to remove any discrimination against the spouse and a child of a female veteran. In future, all male and female veterans, as well as their dependants, will be treated on the same basis. It is proposed that war widows who re-marry after the commencement of the new legislation will not have their war widows' pensions cancelled. In the service pension area it is intended to remove the present doubt and uncertainty concerning the eligibility requirement that a veteran has 'served in a theatre of war'. The present definition of 'theatre of war' is ambiguous and creates uncertainty in respect of entitlement. The proposed legislation will include a clear statement of the criteria to be applied for the determination of eligibility of service pension. Service pension is available to a veteran under the age limits who is permanently unemployable for work. The concept of 'permanent unemployability' is also uncertain and confusing. It is proposed to replace this test for service pension with the same test as is used to determine eligibility for social security invalid pension. Eligibility for service pension will also be extended to veterans who served in the Malayan emergency and who were awarded the British General Service Medal with the appropriate campaign clasp. As with disability pension entitlement, the dependants of all veterans will be treated in the same manner. The definition of 'child' will be along the same lines as for compensation pension. Under the new legislation there will be a clear statutory recognition of the Repatriation Commission's duty to provide medical treatment for eligible veterans. The new legislation will recognise a broader range of treatments, including para-medical services, diagnostic services, counselling services and social and domestic assistance. This new range of benefits will be of particular benefit to our aging veterans and war widows. It will enable the Repatriation Commission, wherever possible and desired, to provide treatment services that will enable frail aged veterans or widows to be maintained in the familiar surroundings of their own homes. I am very pleased with the support that the proposed legislation has received from veterans' organisations. There are some areas where full agreement has not been reached but these are not areas of major policy. Administrative Reforms As part of the total examination of the system, a task force was set up in my Department to report on administrative aspects of the processing of claims and appeals. I have drawn to the attention of honourable senators the large increase in workload which the repatriation system has faced in recent years. In spite of the large increase in the rate at which claims and appeals were being received, few additional resources have been applied to enable the Department to deal with its increasing workload. As a result of that administrative investigation, new procedures are being introduced to enable the smoother handling of claims and appeals. Training programs are being developed to equip the staff handling this part of the departmental responsibility. The Government has agreed that the delays in the processing of claims and appeals should not be tolerated and has agreed to make available more staff resources so that the backlog of work can be attacked and the delays which have grown into the system of recent years can be reduced and avoided. My Department is presently engaged in implementing the improvements which the Administrative Task Force has identified as necessary to enable the system to give better service to veterans and their dependants. Conclusion The Bill now before the Senate reflects, as I have said, the first legislative action of the package which the Government has agreed to adopt to enable the repatriation system to discharge effectively the Government's responsibilities to the veterans whose incapacities have arisen in their service to their country and to the dependants of those whose deaths have been caused by their service. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Sales Tax ( Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935. Bill presented, and read a first time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.45) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill is designed to eliminate an anomaly in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935 which discriminates against handicapped persons. Exemptions from sales tax relating to disabled people are limited to the first schedule of the Principal Act and restricted to those items specifically designed for the handicapped and not usually used by others. The problem arises because this only assists those people who have a common handicap for which specific aids have been developed to the point of commercial availability. The legislation does not cover either general purpose goods that can be adapted after purchase to become aids or general purposes goods that can be used without any modification. The need for such items by some handicapped persons in order to live as normal a life as possible is just as great as the need by other disabled persons for specifically-developed aids yet the legislation discriminates. It all depends on the type of disability a person suffers and the availability of aids specifically designed for that disability. To illustrate this problem I would like to relate a case that recently came to my attention and, in fact, prompted this Bill. It concerns a three-year old boy who was born without arms and has been classified by the Department of Social Security as severely handicapped. His inability to use a pencil or pen greatly restricts his ability to communicate and will be a major disadvantage when he reaches school age. To overcome this problem, the boy's father purchased a micro-computer and began developing a special keyboard which would be suitable for his son's use. The initial cost of the equipment was $4,800 of which $1,100 was sales tax-almost one-quarter of the total cost. The boy's parents were forced to take out a loan to buy the equipment, on top of other debts that had to be serviced, and exemption from sales tax would have significantly lightened the burden. This is just one example of the problem. There are many handicapped people in much worse situations who would simply not be able to buy the item because of the sales tax imposed. People who are disabled face enough difficulties trying to live normal lives as it is without facing such unnecessary hardship. Honourable senators would certainly agree that no disabled person should forgo available aids simply because of the sales tax imposed. My amendment is a simple way of overcoming the problem while being easy to administer. The essence of this simplicity is that the onus of proof would lie with the consumer. The person would first be recognised as disabled and the extent of the disability determined. This would provide a measure of how necessary the aid is. The Department of Social Security, which would administer this legislation, holds detailed records on each handicapped person, which would normally be sufficient. However, certificates from therapists, doctors and others may be required to prove the handicap still exists. It would also need to be proved that the aid would assist with a function regarded as important by the community, such as eating, dressing, or communicating. This could be certified by the person's occupational therapist or physiotherapist. The criteria of eligibility that I have just outlined are not included in the actual amendment I am proposing today. It is obviously impracticable to spell out this detail in the Bill. I would recommend that these details be best dealt with by regulations, as is the case with other items in the Act such as 114B, 115, 115A and 115B. This set of criteria also acts as a safeguard against abuse. The fact that the onus is on the consumer to provide evidence that the aid is necessary and that it is to be used by a person recognised as disabled makes abuse difficult. There are many examples to draw upon to prove that when an individual is required to prove eligibility to a government department, abuse is minimal. Finally, I would like to stress the other factor which makes this Bill so attractive. It is easy to administer. There is no need, as is often the case, to establish a new bureaucracy to administer it and any administration that is required is relatively inexpensive. The Department of Social Security could receive and process the applications. Apart from simply checking the details of the application, the disabled person's file would be checked for previous applications. Where similar aids have been previously given exemption, an explanation could be required from the consumer. When eligibility for exemption has been verified a certificate, which need not be complex, could then be issued. It would name the retailer, applicant, aid required and purchase price. A record of this would then be placed on the disabled person's file. I believe it is important that every effort should be made to ease the burdens faced by disabled persons in our community. Many of these people are facing unnecessary hardship because of the limited scope of the existing legislation. It is time that these limitations are acknowledged and rectified and that is what my amendment does. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) adjourned. Assent to the following Bills reported: Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1984 Apple and Pear Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Dried Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1984 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.47) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Under section 4A of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 , the Commissioner of Taxation is required, by the end of July each year, to make a determination as to the amount of personal income tax collections which is used as the basis for local government tax sharing arrangements. Prior to the introduction of the prescribed payments system, which operates under Division 3A of Part VI of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the income tax regulations, collections of tax payable on income to which that system now applies, were reflected in the amount of provisional tax and balances of tax payable that were collected in a particular year of income and which are specifically included in the definition of personal income tax in the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. The purpose of this Bill is to make amendments consequential upon the introduction of the PPS to allow payments made under that system to be taken into account in the personal income tax which forms the basis of local government tax sharing. Without these amendments to specifically include the appropriate part of collections of PPS deductions, that is, collections from individuals in the year in which they are received, the amount of net personal income tax collections forming the basis of local government tax sharing arrangements would in future be permanently reduced by the amount of those PPS deductions. The reason for this is that, in the year following their receipt, PPS deductions will reduce both the amount of tax otherwise to be collected on an assessment of the income of the preceding year, and the amount of provisional tax to be levied in respect of the then current year. Such a result would not only be contrary to the intended basis for local government tax sharing arrangements, but it would also be inconsistent with the tax sharing arrangements with the States which include PPS deductions in the base on which the tax sharing amount is calculated. The amendments are essentially technical amendments designed to maintain the original intention of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976; to ensure consistency with the provisions of the tax sharing arrangements; and to allow the Commissioner of Taxation to include receipts received in 1983- 84 in the base figure for calculation of the 1984-85 grants to local government. Financial Impact Statement It is estimated that the amendments will allow an additional $2-3m to be paid to local governments under the income tax sharing arrangements for the 1984-85 financial year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.49) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 to modernise the structure of the constituent banks of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and to substantially improve the capital position of the Commonwealth Trading Bank. These amendments were decided upon following a major review of the financial structure and organisation of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation which was conducted by the corporation board and management and the Treasury. The structure of the Australian financial system has changed markedly since the corporation banks were established under the Commonwealth Banks legislation passed in 1959. The proposed changes are designed to place the corporation banks in a position where they will be able to compete on a fully comparable basis with the major private banking and non-banking institutions. The main provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in the Treasurer's Press release of 2 April 1984. A major aspect of the Bill provides for the Commonwealth Savings Bank to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Commonwealth Trading Bank. At present, the Commonwealth Savings Bank and Commonwealth Trading Bank are separate public statutory bodies. Reorganisation on this basis will establish a structure similar to that of the private banking groups and will allow a more effective organisation of the resources of the two banks. This reorganisation will not change the basic functions of the Commonwealth Savings Bank. However, it should allow for an improvement in the range of the services offered by both the trading and savings banks. Following from this reorganisation, the Bill also provides for the name of the restructured Commonwealth Trading Bank to be changed to the 'Commonwealth Bank of Australia'. This re-establishes the original name of the Commonwealth Bank when it commenced operations in 1912. The name of the Commonwealth Savings Bank will not be changed. The Bill also allows for the capital position of the Commonwealth Bank to be bolstered in order to strengthen its competitive ability and profitability. In the 1983-84 Budget, the Treasurer announced that there would be an injection of $15m in additional capital into the Commonwealth Bank. This will be effected through the Bill. The Bill also provides for the transfer of $75m from the reserves of the Commonwealth Development Bank to the Commonwealth Bank. The transfer of reserves from the Commonwealth Development Bank will still leave the Development Bank with a level of capital and reserves equivalent to the very high ratio of about one quarter of its liabilities. I would emphasise that this transfer of reserves will not affect the current or prospective operations of the Development Bank. In addition to these measures, I would mention that the board of the Corporation has also decided that the Corporation and its constitutent banks will revalue premises to reflect current market valuations. This will have a substantial positive impact on the capital position of the Commonwealth Bank. The Bill also provides for the Government to increase the scope available to it in future to add to the capital of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank through allowing higher retained earnings. The existing statutory provisions require that half of the after-tax profits of the Commonwealth Trading Bank and half of the net profits of the Savings Bank be paid to the Commonwealth. The new provisions will introduce flexibility into the profit sharing arrangements and allow for dividend arrangements more broadly in line with the private banking groups. They provide for the proportion of net profits to be paid by the Commonwealth Bank to be determined by the Treasurer, with a maximum payment of 45 per cent of the net profits of the Commonwealth Bank and its savings bank subsidiary, the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The Savings Bank will pay a dividend to the Commonwealth Bank, and the amount of that dividend in any year will be determined by the corporation board. There will continue to be no dividend requirement on the Commonwealth Development Bank. The Bill also includes specific provisions relating to the present financial year, that is, prior to the main provisions of the Bill coming into effect. Those provisions provide that for the year ending 30 June 1984, the dividend payable to the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Trading Bank and Commonwealth Savings Bank shall be determined by the Treasurer but shall not represent more than 45 per cent of net profits. Under the present Act, the Commonwealth Savings Bank, the Commonwealth Development Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, but not the Commonwealth Trading Bank, have been exempt from Commonwealth company income tax . The Bill removes the exemption enjoyed by those banks. However, the Bill does provide for a rebate to be given for any profit sharing payments made by the Commonwealth Savings Bank under the State Savings Bank amalgamation agreements. Those payments are made on a pre-tax basis and to not provide a rebate would impose an unfair burden on the Bank relative to its competitors. The Bill also provides for a more flexible management and board structure for the corporation banks by removing the statutory general manager positions for the Trading Bank, the Savings Bank and the Development Bank and also the statutory executive committees of those banks. The statutory positions of managing director and deputy managing director will however remain. The present Act imposes certain restrictions on the Corporation's employment of graduates. The Bill removes the present age limit and the restriction on numbers of graduates, and allows the Corporation to include graduates of colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions. I commend the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill 1984 to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER(Senator Colston) —A message has been received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it has agreed to the following resolution and seeking the concurrence of the Senate: Message No. 245 Mr President, The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: (1) That, for the purposes related to the inquiry into the televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses of Parliament and their committees: (a) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to appoint a sub-committee consisting of 2 or more Senators and 2 or more Members of the House of Representatives, 2 members of the sub-committee to form a quorum of the sub-committee; (ii) to appoint the chairman of any sub-committee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chairman of a sub-committee is not present at a meeting of the sub-committee, the members of the sub-committee present shall elect another member of that sub-committee to perform the duties of chairman at that meeting, and (iii) to refer to such a sub-committee any matter into which the committee is instructed to inquire; (b) any sub-committee appointed by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings have power- (i) to send for persons, papers and records, and (ii) to authorise publication of any evidence given before it, or any information obtained in the course of its inquiry, or any document presented to it, and (c) the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings or any sub-committee appointed by the committee have power to move from place to place. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. H. A. Jenkins Speaker Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That consideration of the messages be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I want to place on the record a matter on which I have issued a statement today and which relates to the program which the Senate faces over the next two weeks or, perhaps, three weeks. The Government has today given us an indication of the Bills which it considers necessary to pass during this session. I think it would be fair to say that we face a considerable job. Not only are there to be a significant number of debates, but also there are a number of Bills which will attract quite a lot of debate. There is the crime authority legislation, the debate which we are about to start tonight, the debate on the appropriation legislation and so on. I draw to the Government's attention the fact that it is the Opposition's view that it should not be a factor in the Senate's approach to legislation that we may move into a stage where the Senate is sitting and the House of Representatives is not. Those of us who have been here for some time would be familiar with the fact that there is frequently a difficulty for the Senate in the fact that the House of Representatives rises before we do. Where there is legislation which the Senate may wish to amend, the Government has the ready argument that if the legislation were amended there would be undue and considerable delay in the completion of the legislation. That is a matter which is of concern to the Opposition. I understand that Senator Chipp made his view clear on this earlier today and gave notice of a motion which is relevant to the point that I am making. Regulations and Ordinances Committee I want to say at the commencement of this two weeks sitting period that the Government should not proceed under the misapprehension that the Senate will tamely accept important legislation in the dying hours and forgo the right to amend Bills on the basis that the House of Representatives has adjourned. If the Government wants to get the House up for the winter recess at the end of next week, it should ensure that any legislation whose passage before the Budget session it considers essential is presented for debate while both chambers are in session. If it does otherwise, it will put pressure on the Senate but it is a pressure which the Opposition would propose to withstand and a pressure which, I understand, the Australian Democrats would propose to withstand. Whilst it would be the wish of the Opposition to deal in a sensible way with the legislative program of the Government, and the Opposition is prepared to sit for whatever period it is required to do that, I ask the Government to take into account in its programming the fact that contentious items which we would be seeking to amend should not be brought forward after the House of Representatives has risen. If that does happen, the Government should hold itself ready to bring the House of Representatives back as required. I thank the Senate for its indulgence. [COGNATE DEBATE: CUSTOMS (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS REGULATIONS CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT)] Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr Acting Deputy President, might I suggest that it would suit the convenience of the Senate to debate cognately Order of the Day No. 2, together with Business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and Business of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1 , all of which relate to the same subject matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —There being no objection, it is so ordered. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(8.56) —I wish to continue briefly my remarks from earlier today when I tabled the report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on the regulations and an ordinance in relation to various censorship matters. I do not intend to take more than a few minutes to do so in order that those honourable senators who really want to speak on these issues can have time to do so. The fact is that this is the last day that these regulations and this ordinance can be dealt with by the Senate. If this debate is not dealt with today the subordinate legislation is automatically deemed to be disallowed. It is therefore very important that the Senate gets on with this debate and concludes it in good time. I express my thanks to the Committee staff for their hard work and tolerance of the Committee over the last couple of weeks and especially over the last couple of days when we were finalising this report. A lot of work was done under a great deal of pressure to satisfy this reference's very tight timetable. As may be realised, it was a very unusual and difficult reference for the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. I express my hope that a reference such as this does not occur again in such an ad hoc way. For those who are only just delving into the report I point out that there are a number of matters of terminology to be considered in dealing with the report. We used the term 'pre-existing law' to deal with the regulations and the ordinance as they applied prior to 1 February this year. We used the term 'new law' to refer to the law as it has applied since 1 February and also refer to ' draft amendments', which are the further changes proposed by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) to that new law. What people reading the report must be careful of is the use of the words 'restrict', 'restriction' and ' restrictive'. We use the terminology that was perhaps unfortunately used in the terms of reference about restricting the Commonwealth's existing powers. This use of the word 'restrict' means that when we see that something has been restricted it is in fact the other way round in censorship terms. I will just make a few brief comments about the report and the difficulties of it. I emphasise that we must look at it knowing that draft amendments are in the pipeline. We cannot just make a simple comparison between the new and the pre- existing laws. We have assurances from the Attorney-General and we have actually circulated amendments. The Committee has always worked on the basis that assurances from Ministers that changes are in the pipeline are accepted. I have had a brief glance at the dissenting report which is included in the document, which I saw only a few minutes before its tabling. I do not want to go into a detailed critique of it but I think that its content and tone go beyond the strict legal comparison which was asked of us in the terms of reference which, though difficult at times, we did as a Committee try to stick to. As far as the new censorship laws as a package are concerned, we all need to understand that it is a totally new scheme. Again, that made the Committee's comparisons difficult because we are talking about two things which are very difficult to compare. For instance, in the old pre-existing law, words such as ' unduly emphasise matter of . . . violence' were used and in the new laws words such as 'gratuitously depict . . . violence' are used. It is very much a matter of judgment as to which of those sets of words can be interpreted as restricting powers the most. Once again, the terms of reference made our job more difficult because they included terms such as 'hard core pornography' and 'other gross obscenities', which are not terms used in either the pre-existing laws or the new laws. I do not want to add any more at this stage other than to express my support as a member of the Senate for the Government's new laws and the proposed amendments to bring our censorship laws well and truly up to date. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.03) —I also wish to speak on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. It is a special report. With all due respect to the Chairman of that Committee, I cannot agree that the Senate ought not in the future to refer to the Committee references such as this one. Senator Coates —I said in such an ad hoc way. I do not mind it reviewing our terms. Senator LEWIS —I see. I misunderstood my Chairman. Apparently his objection is to the so-called ad hoc way it was done in the Senate. This particular reference has assisted the Committee considerably along the track of determining recommendations which the Committee should make in the future about when the Committee ought to report that matters should be dealt with by substantive legislation rather than by way or regulation and ordinance. Certainly, the Committe has been under extreme pressure to produce its report in the time which the Senate needed, as a result of the problems with disallowance motions. Nevertheless, I think the exercise has been excellent. I congratulate the Senate Committee's staff, in particular the Secretary, Dr Uhr, the Senate's legal adviser, Professor Whalan, and the other staff, advisers and typists, who have been involved in the almost indecent haste necessary in order to produce this report. They have certainly done an excellent job-the sort of job that I suppose we are now getting used to in the Senate with the marvellous staff who service us. By way of explanation of the report, the first 13 pages contain the report, first of the whole Committee and, secondly, of the majority of the Committee. In other words, the first eight pages of the report, down to paragraph 16, contain the unanimous recommendation of the Committee. It is in those paragraphs that the comparison is made between what the Committee describes as the pre-existing legislation-that is what I call legislation which was in place prior to 1 February 1984 but which it should be appreciated is legislation by way of delegated legislation-and what the Committee has defined as the new legislation which was introduced by this Government on 1 February 1984. These were also the draft regulations and an ordinance which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), having foreshadowed them in the Senate prior to the adjournment of the Senate after the last period of sittings, circulated to all honourable senators during the recent break. The Committee then considered those draft regulations in its report. Those first 16 paragraphs make comparisons of the legislation. On page 8 we have what is described as consideration of the question: (3) That the Committee advise the Senate whether, in the light of this examination, the Regulations or Ordinance contain matter more appropriate for parliamentary enactment or revised delegated legislation. The majority report, signed by the Chairman, I presume on behalf of Senators Cook, Richardson, Tate and Zakharov, continues through to page 13, paragraph 25. The dissenting report then follows, from page 14 to an unnumbered page, for some 23 paragraphs. That dissenting report is signed by Senator Archer, Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Harradine and myself. So the Committee was divided about this very vexed and difficult question of how far the Government should be allowed to introduce into the Parliament very complex laws, new legislation, by way of regulations and an ordinance. I openly acknowledge that I have had great difficulty in coming to a decision on this matter. I am aware of the history of the Committee and I can assure the Senate that I did my best to come up with a report which was unanimous in all aspects, but ultimately I had to come down with a recommendation that the matters contained in the new law and in the draft regulations and ordinance submitted by the Attorney-General should be the subject of parliamentary enactment. There comes a point beyond which the Parliament surely must stand up and say, 'This law and these proposals are such that the whole Parliament ought to be given the opportunity to consider them by way of an Act of Parliament', instead of using the convoluted back-door way we have of considering delegated legislation, thanks to the existence of a Senate committee and the Standing Orders of the Senate. Honourable senators will be able to read the dissenting report and see expressed the reasons why I came to that decision. There is no doubt that these proposals are of enormous consequence to the people of Australia, and the other place ought to be given an opportunity to consider them. We ought to be given the opportunity to consider amendments and votes ought to be able to be taken on questions of alteration by way of amendment. We cannot do that with regulations. I know that we have changed the rules so that not only can we disallow a whole ordinance but also part of an ordinance. Although that is a considerable advance on our previous system, it still does not overcome the problem of how one alters an ordinance which one believes is wrong. I draw attention to the complaints of a former Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senator Cavanagh. He used to complain bitterly, for example, about my Government -and, I might add, his own Government-introducing a schedule which varied workers compensation entitlements or accident entitlements by way of regulation. He constantly pointed out to the Senate that that meant that if we disagreed with, say, an assessment of $50,000 for the loss of a leg, we were placed in an impossible situation. All we could do was to disallow the whole ordinance, which would mean that no amount would be allowable for any of the matters listed in the schedule, or disallow that part of it so that a person who lost a leg would not be entitled to anything, although the whole of the Parliament might be of the view that the amount ought to be increased. Because it is done by way of regulation, the Parliament is unable to act in its proper role, which is a legislative role. That is the situation we are confronted with today. It must be conceded even by the Attorney-General, I think, that these proposals have been subject to enormous criticism. The Attorney-General has already introduced many pages of proposed amendments to the ordinance. Clearly, the Attorney-General would acknowledge that he has great difficulty in finding a form of words which satisfies all the requirements in this matter. Yet the Parliament will not be given an opportunity to express its views on this matter by way of amendments which could be properly put and debated, considered and then voted upon. I submit to the Senate that that is why these laws ought to be disallowed and ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. In the last four paragraphs of the dissenting report we point out to the Senate the enormous difficulty with which the Senate is confronted by being put in a position where, at around 9 o'clock at night, it must properly debate this matter and come to a conclusion because today is the last day upon which this matter can be dealt with, thanks to the Standing Orders. So the Senate is placed in a position where it has to apply its mind to these enormously complex matters - Senator Gareth Evans —It has had a fair bit of practice on this one. Senator LEWIS —I hear the Attorney-General say that we have had a fair bit of practice on it. Let me assure the Attorney-General that every member of that Senate Committee, all eight of us, had to spend many hours reading and re- reading the pre-existing, the new and the proposed regulations and ordinances, and the reports, before we could grasp what was proposed. Even now, with all due respect, we will find that undoubtedly honourable senators will not really grasp the significance of all this. I gather from something that has been happening around me, from some of the laughter going on, that perhaps the Australian Democrats may have got the bull by whatever they get the bull by. It is a great pity that the Democrats did not have a member on this Committee. Senator Walters —Why not? Read this and you will see why not. This is their news release. Now you will know why not. Senator LEWIS —I have not had a chance to read the news release. Everybody in the Senate apparently has had the chance to read it, but I have been on my feet ever since it was distributed around the chamber. I cannot read it while I am on my feet. Senators Walters —Here you are, read it out. Senator LEWIS —It has been suggested to me that I should read it out. It states: The Australian Democrats Deputy Leader Senator Colin Mason today attacked the Liberal Party for its intention to vote on a customs regulation on X-rated videotapes, saying it represented a new low in political cynicism and dishonesty . Good grief! The Committee spent hours worrying about this, trying to solve the problem, trying to come up with a form of words which is accurate. What is this nonsense that the Democrats have come out with? Fair dinkum, one would not believe that Senator Mason represented the State of New South Wales. The Press release goes on: 'I have been told the Liberals will vote for disallowance of a regulation controlling the entry into Australia of the filthiest and most violent pornography imaginable,' Senator Mason said. What on earth is he talking about? It is unbelievable that he should behave in this way. I point out that I am not a Catholic and never have been a Catholic. I am an Anglican. Nevertheless, I was very impressed by some material which was provided to the Committee by the Catholic Bishops of Australia. The material was headed as a submission. Of course, the Committee did not receive submissions. It did not advertise for submissions so the material was not received as a submission. It was received as correspondence because anyone is entitled to write to the Senate Committee. The submission is of five and a half pages and a supplementary submission received subsequently by the Committee is of one page. I seek leave to have both documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- SUBMISSION OF THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF AUSTRALIA The Catholic Bishops of Australia welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in relation to the reference to that Committee of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations ( Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and associated Regulations made under the Customs Act and the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 of the Australian Capital Territory and the Regulations made under that Ordinance. All of these Regulations and the Ordinance are in this submission called compendiously ''the relevant Delegated Legislation''. This Submission is divided into two parts. Part 1 deals with the substantive effect on the previously existing law of the making of the relevant Delegated legislation. Part 2 deals with matters that are more directly relevant to the principles adopted by the Committee to guide the Committee's operations. Part I The Catholic Bishops of Australia have for some time been greatly troubled by the moral standard of much of the literature, the films and the video tapes that appear to be freely available in Australia. The general issue of the distribution of pornographic and other objectionable material has been debated in the Senate of the Australian Parliament and the debate continues. The occasion for the debate was a series of motions for the disallowance of the relevant Delegated Legislation. It seems now to be generally agreed that much of the relevant Delegated Legislation in the form in which it came into operation on 1 February 1984 was not satisfactory and remains unsatisfactory. By reason of the operation of the relevant Delegated Legislation- (a) A person is free to import any film, video tape or video disc, notwithstanding that it deals with matters of sex, drugs, crime, cruelty, or revolting phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person so long as it does not depict child pornography, encourage terrorism or gratuitously depict violence or cruelty. (b) A person is free to deal commercially with material of this character whether imported or locally produced so long as it has been given a classification rating by the Censorship Board-classification ratings being provided for soft pornography (rating R) and hard-core pornography (rating X). (c) Persons in the Australian Capital Territory who deal commercially or otherwise with hard-core pornography that has been classified will no longer be able to be prosecuted for the common law offences of obscene libel or conspiracy to corrupt public morals because those offences are abolished to the extent to which they apply to material that has been given a classification rating. (d) Films and video tapes and discs depicting unnatural sexual behaviour, even bestiality, could be accorded a classification rating. Whether they would or would not be classified is within the discretion of the Censorship Board. 6. We believe that the production and distribution of pornographic material or material depicting gratuitous violence or cruelty always involves grave moral danger especially for young people. In common with all those who have expressed views on the subject in the Parliament (including Ministers), we believe that some form of censorship must be exercised; the debate is about where the line should be drawn. 7. It is our clear view that the law should prohibit the importation, production, possession or distribution of all objectionable publications. In this context, we would define an objectionable publication as a book, magazine, film, video tape or the like that depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person. 8. We believe that the ready availability in perhaps a majority of Australian homes of video equipment poses a particular danger to the moral wellbeing of children-a danger that demands the making and enforcement of effective laws to control the importation, production, possession and distribution of objectionable video tapes and discs. 9. Whilst it is possible for conscientious parents to exercise supervision over the attendance of children at places of public entertainment, it is virtually impossible for parents to exercise any censorship over what children may see on home video equipment. A youngster who is at the home of friends may be shown video films of the most objectionable kind to which his or her parents may have the strongest objections. There is an urgent need for effective legislation to control the flood of highly objectionable videos that is pouring into the Australian market. No legislation has any real prospect of being effective unless it seeks to apply controls at the point of production or importation as well as at the point of distribution. 11. None of those who have spoken on the subject in the Parliament claims any personal interest in hard-core pornography. If these people fairly represent the Australian community, there is no reason why hard-core pornography should not be banned by law. The danger that it represents to the young and impressionable is very great and the protection of the young is of the first importance. We believe that the relevant Delegated Legislation should be recommended for disallowance by this Committee and should be disallowed by the Senate; that the pre-existing law which would be revived by its disallowance should be enforced; and that urgent consideration should be given to devising an effective scheme for controlling the importation and circulation of objectionable publications generally-but particularly of objectionable video tapes and discs. 12. We acknowledge that uniformity of the law on this subject throughout Australia may be desirable. But uniform laws are desirable only if they are good laws. The laws now before this Committee and the Senate are wholly unsuitable models for other legislatures. Part 2 13. Applying the Principles that have been adopted by the Committee to the relevant Delegated Legislation, we make the following submissions: (a) The relevant Delegated Legislation gave effect to major policy changes in the area of censorship. Those policy changes are of such great importance to the whole community that they should remain the direct responsibility of the Parliament itself and its elected members. It is not appropriate for those changes to be given effect to by delegated legislation of the Executive Government. In particular, the decisions (i) to end control over the importation of films and videos, other than films and videos for public exhibition (Customs (Cinemetograph Films) Regulations); (ii) to permit commercial dealing for profit in hard core pornography (Classification of Publications Ordinance), are of such major importance that they should not be given effect to except by direct parliamentary enactment. (b) The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, as amended by Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 diminish the Government's pre-existing powers to prevent the importation of publications, including films and videos, that promote or encourage violence or the use of hard drugs or depict hard core pornography. They do so because the pre-existing rights of citizens to objective control over the importation of objectionable publications (see par. 7 above) is abolished and replaced by controls dependent upon subjective administrative decisions not subject to independent review of their merits. Under Regulation 4A the question whether the importation of publications or other goods of the kind described in the regulation is prohibited depends upon the opinion of the Attorney-General or a person authorized by him (Sub-regulation 4A (1A)). Under regulation 4A (1A) (b ), the test whether the importation of goods, other than publications, is prohibited is wholly uncertain in that it depends on the subjective views of the Attorney-General or a person authorized by him; the test for prohibition is whether the Attorney-General or an authorized person is of opinion that the goods to be imported are concerned with matters of sex, drugs, crime, cruelty etc. 'in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person to the extent that they should not be imported' (emphasis added). (c) The Classification of Publications Ordinance includes provisions with respect to the classification of publications films and advertising matter that correspond to the provisions referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph (b) above. In this connexion, see sections 19 (3), 25 (3), 28 (1) (a). (d) The general dispensing power conferred on the Attorney-General by section 56 of the Classification of Publications Ordinance makes the rights of citizens dependent on administrative decisions not subject to effective review. The exercise of that power will diminish the pre-existing power to protect children from exposure to publications including videos that promote or encourage violence or the use of hard drugs or that depict hard core pornography. 14. We believe that amendments made by sub-regulation 7 (4) of Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 are unwarranted. That sub-regulation gives the Chief Censor a casting vote in certain circumstances and thereby increases considerably the significance of regulation 40 of the Customs (Cinemetograph Films) Regulations. That regulation empowers the Attorney-General to direct that a matter arising under the regulations be submitted to him for determination and to give such directions as he thinks fit; the Chief Censor is required to take such action as is necessary to give effect to the directions. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF AUSTRALIA Having reviewed the Submission sent to the Committee on 22 May 1984, we have noted that it does not refer specifically to the need to control the importation , production and distribution of material that is blasphemous. By this we mean material that ridicules or holds up to contempt the religious beliefs or convictions of people, whatever may be the nature of those religious beliefs. 2. It is our view, that there should be effective control over material of this kind. The distribution of blasphemous material involves discrimination which cannot be justified. Accordingly, we would slightly revise the definition of objectionable publications, which we set out in paragraph 7 of our original submission, by including in it specific reference to blasphemous material. The revised definition of ''objectionable material'' would include '' any book, magazine, film, video tape or the like- (a) that depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorent behaviour in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person; or (b) that is blasphemous and is for that reason likely to cause offence to reasonable adult persons.'' (The revision of the original definition is underlined). Senator LEWIS —I have put those documents in the Hansard because it seems to me that the Catholic bishops or whoever wrote their submission really applied their minds to these problems very well and expressed them clearly and far more succinctly than I could. The whole argument about these laws is where the line ought to be drawn. Even the Attorney-General apparently is now prepared to admit , to concede, that there is a question of where the line is to be drawn. I say that because he seems to be reluctant to concede that there is a question of drawing the line. He talked about 'giving effect to the policy of the freedom of adults to see, hear and read what they wish'; he then added 'but with specific prohibitions'. The Attorney-General and the Government have then drawn a line. The placement of the line is always difficult and will always be controversial I suppose as perceptions about the effect of publications on the community change. I get cross when the Attorney-General and Senator Mason, with all due respect to them, criticise other people in the community for endeavouring to place the line in a different position or in a different manner from the place where they believe the line ought to be drawn. I suggest to them that these matters are extremely difficult and that there are varying views. I am particularly concerned about the report from a psychologist in Victoria about the effect of violence in the community arising from viewing films and video cassettes. Since the rising of this Senate, in other words in the last couple of weeks, just about the time when the Senate was getting up for its last two-week break, there was a case in Victoria where a young fellow sitting in a picture theatre asked three other young people if they would mind being quiet so that he could watch the show. After that show which, I gather, was an R rated film of considerable violence these three fellows followed him out, chased him down a lane and kicked him into unconsciousness. He was lucky to escape with his life. There is a report to the Attorney-General from a psychologist in Victoria which has been referred to in previous debates and there is the report of the United Kingdom Parliament about the growth of violence arising from these films. I compare it to, say, cigarette smoking. If someone arrived on this planet at this stage and said he wanted to introduce us to a new thing called tobacco and that we roll it in a bit of paper, light one end of it and suck it into our mouths we would now, with the hindsight of 250 years of people coughing up their lungs as a result of doing just that very thing, tell him to take a running jump . How much hindsight will he have about the effect on people of viewing the sort of violence that is now being used for gain? There may be some artistic merit of some sort in some of these films, but far too frequently they are being produced for one specific purpose; that is, to arouse the violence and violent emotions and feelings within people in this community. It is clear that that is the whole purpose of these films. In other words, violence is being used for crass profit. It has nothing to do with artistic merit, it has to do with the ability to get people to pay money to go to see something or to take it home with them. This is a matter of grave concern to the community. Let us look down the track. I do not know where it will lead but, glory be, we surely do not want to rush into the situation in which we allow this sort of stuff to come pouring into the country without any real control over it at this stage when these problems are being raised. I know that, of course, I will be called a wowser or the like because I am opposed to these progressive views which the Attorney-General would have us lumbered with, but I will be interested to see how he views these matters 20 years hence with perhaps a bit of maturity and a bit of wisdom. I will be interested to see what he feels and how much responsibility he is prepared to accept for the violence erupting in this community. As recently as 20 years ago people did not mind walking around the streets at night by themselves. It is now acknowledged that one is a fool to walk around the streets alone at night. Girls who are forced to work in an office until late at night now demand, and rightly so, a taxi to take them home for their protection. That has happened within 20 years. I just feel that we ought to be much more careful about where we place the line in regard to the importation of this material and its classification. In regard to the placement of that line I refer honourable senators to the submission of the Catholic bishops of Australia. I believe that there is much merit in the words contained in that submission. I hope that as a result of this the Democrats, notwithstanding this nonsense that Senator Mason has apparently released, see the wisdom in saying to the Government: 'Bring in an Act of Parliament so that this matter can be considered over a proper period of time and proper and due amendments can be considered'. If we cannot persuade the Government to do that can we persuade the Government to withdraw the current regulations and replace them with the new draft regulations so that the Senate and, I hope, the House of Representatives, can be given some proper time to give the consideration to these laws that they deserve. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(9.29) —The Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment) and the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 concern the vexed and important issues of the control of X rated videotapes in our community. In this area there is a tremendous divergence of view as to what is pornography, what is right and proper, what people should be exposed to, what they should not be exposed to, and the general associated issue of the extent to which the community itself intrudes and imposes its own standards perhaps on what ordinary citizens may do, particularly in the privacy of their own homes. The matter is justly regarded as important. I do not derogate those who express that concern genuinely and for real reasons. I will deal with that a little later in my remarks. I think that most citizens see this issue as important because of their children. They feel that their children should not be exposed to influences which are dangerous, bad or corrosive. Is there a community consensus on this matter? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Senator Mason, I must interrupt you. The motion before the Chair at the moment is that the Senate take note of the report. It is a cognate debate. Because that motion is in front of the Chair it is not in order for you to move your motion at this stage. You will be able to move it formally later on. Senator MASON —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I withdraw the motion. I will move it at the appropriate time. However, I have given notice of it. I believe that is important at this stage. It is reasonable enough to consider, as indeed it has been considered in this place-I think that everybody in the community, except those very perverse people, would agree-that violence and cruelty are the worst parts of pornography. I think there is a genuine community feeling about that. I must say that since this very vexed issue was raised, the feedback which I have received by way of many letters from people, including clergymen, has been along those lines. As far as the Canberra ordinance is concerned, what the Australian Democrats have wanted all along-I want to make this quite plain, as I have made it plain before throughout this debate from when we first raised this matter, which was at least six months ago-was a change in the situation regarding classification. Throughout this time we have said, as have other people, that classification should be compulsory and not voluntary. It is a cause of concern to us that for a variety of reasons the proposed amendments that would make this ordinance compulsory, which have been circulated and which everybody knows about-I think that at present the amendments are before the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly-are not in place. The dilemma of the Democrats is this: Should we vote for disallowance on that basis in a kind of punitive way? Because the Government has not got the regulations in place should we say: 'You have not done what we wanted you to do. Therefore, we will put you down'? That would be the effect of it. We have thought: 'What would be the consequences of that action?' This is the core of this debate. That is what our debate this evening should be about. It should not be about the issues which Senator Lewis has raised, although they are important, but rather what would be the consequences of our disallowing these regulations and this ordinance tonight? That is what has concerned us. As a result, we have been very troublesome again today to the Government and we have applied certain conditions again. If Senator Walters wants to call it a deal she can do so. It has resulted in something of which I doubt she would disapprove; that is, we have a definite undertaking from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), which I have no doubt he will confirm, that by early Thursday morning that compulsory provision will be in place. This whole issue has been discussed by the State and Federal Attorneys-General. That was as a result of our raising it earlier in this place. Senator Harradine —The States agreed to that a month ago or more. Senator MASON —We raised this matter nearly six months ago. As a result of raising the matter here and our earlier debate on it, prior to the meeting of State and Federal Attorneys-General, this matter has come to the fore. I believe the Federal and State officers have by now clearly understood that the Australian people want compulsory classification. It is essential that the firmest control possible be kept over X-rated videotapes. I do not think that because of this the community wants to be taken back to the 1890s with ankle- length swimsuits or perhaps no nudity whatsoever. I believe there is a tolerance , possibly even a need, in the community for what is called pornography, although I do not understand it. The whole point about pornography is that it is a much abused, ill-defined word, for its interpretation is very much in the eye, the mind and often the prejudices of the beholder. It is that which makes this a difficult debate. It is that which makes it a difficult debate in the community as well as in this place. I think it is necessary that there should be a community consensus over these matters. I believe it is important that those of us who have certain standards and opinions should not seek to impose those automatically on other people who may not have them. I believe that is a principle of freedom which all honourable senators ought to respect. Certainly I and the Australian Democrats respect it. To us that is quite basic. I repeat that we set ourselves two things through this debate: Firstly, the mandatory classification and, secondly, the total exclusion of violent and cruel material. The Democrats' struggle-it has been a battle-has been against the entry to this country of violent, sadistic, gratuitous material. I repeat that we have won that battle. Those types of videotapes are not now permitted, in terms of the regulations, into this country. On this basis we will not support any of the three motions. They were machinery devices to get what we wanted and we have got what we wanted. Why not withdraw them? I believe that is a question worth putting in here. If the question is not put and voted on tonight the effect will be that the regulations and the ordinance will be disallowed. That is not the situation we want to see occur. I will deal with that in a few minutes. We are motivated strongly by the effect that would arise if the ordinance and the regulations were disallowed. We believe it would be irresponsible to contribute to their disallowance. This is a matter which, in fact, motivated the Press release. I am delighted to see that members of the Liberal Party have taken it to heart. It was pitched perhaps in strong terms, but reasonably so, as I will outline later. What would happen if these regulations and the ordinance were disallowed? It would mean a reversion to the previous legislation which is out-moded, inadequate, retrogressive and unworkable. It has been proven to be unworkable. I would think that would have quite the opposite effect to what is required. I do not think that this is completely understood. For instance, the 1958 Australian Capital Territory ordinance would create a situation in which there was no control at the point of sale, no special provision to protect young people, and a general system which would not work and which, as I say, has not worked in the past. The fact that it has not worked was the reason for the present new mechanisms being introduced. I think that the Australian Democrats can claim with some pride to have been absolutely consistent in this matter throughout its history in this place, unlike some other people. We can also claim to have achieved a great deal in the interests of Australians. Indeed, the feedback which I have had from the community, which has been considerable, has acknowledged this. I deeply resent the attempt by a few people, a few troglodytes, to misrepresent the issue and to try to perpetrate a kind of general smear, an unpleasant carping attitude which has not indicated clearly what else might be done and which has not achieved anything. That has been the effect of the actions of certain people in the Senate. There has been a great deal of noise, a great deal of malice, irresponsible mischief and a general wrecking instinct which takes no account whatsoever of the consequences of that wrecking process. The Australian Democrats have pushed the Government hard over this matter and, we believe, with good reason. I do not say that these regulations cannot be improved. That is not the point at this stage. I reiterate that the point at this stage is what would happen if these regulations were disallowed at this time. Can we ever say that any regulation, any law, that we make in this place is perfect? Of course we cannot. Do we say that legislation is to be suspended or held up for years or months on end and not have any effect because of that? Of course we do not say that. Nor do we say that any matter is totally ended. This matter is not ended. I have no doubt that it will be a matter of debate for a long time to come. But I believe that is not the point. I stress again to honourable senators that the issue is what would happen if the regulations were disallowed at this stage. That is the question which must engage our attention. I make this point very firmly to the Liberal Party: What would be the consequences if the regulations were disallowed? I am speaking mainly of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, which, as honourable senators know, achieved the situation whereby violent and cruel material cannot now be imported into this country. They very effectively prevent the importation into Australia of violent and cruel material with gratuitous sexual aspects. The most important part of that legislation is the second part of regulation 4A (1) (iii), which puts a complete and effective curb on the importation of X-rated material depicting rape or any other violent sexual assault. If that is not something of value, what is? What else has emerged so far from this debate that is of value other than a blind striking out and a desire to wreck and destroy? It is axiomatic that material came into the country before the change was made in that regulation, and that is to be regretted. However, I think it stresses the importance of controlling material which gratuitously depicts rape. Such material in the possession of some person with a sick mind who would use it in private is indeed an incitement to rape in real life. This places women and children at risk. I resent deeply the imputations made by honourable senators to my right that we have not achieved something of value with that regulation. I wonder where their morals and their integrity are when they take that stance. Disallowance of these regulations would indeed open the floodgates to more of this material, because there would be a reversion to the outmoded and, indeed, unworkable previous machinery. I am concerned that this would create the very situation we are trying to avoid and play right into the hands of those who promote this vicious and cruel trade. If the members of the Liberal Party do not like my Press release, let them deny that they are going to vote for the disallowance of this regulation. Senator Walters —We are going to vote against it and you said that you were, too . Senator MASON —I have never said at any stage that I would vote against it. I have made it plain that these were mechanisms to achieve what we wanted, and we have got what we wanted. I repeat: If this regulation is disallowed it will indeed open the floodgates to more of this material because there would be a reversion to the outmoded and unworkable previous machinery. I have not yet found any member of the public who has read carefully through that regulation and who does not realise that it is an improvement on what was there before. I state to honourable senators that there is no reason in the world to suppose that debate on this matter is at its end. Of course it is not at its end. I have made it plain over the months since I first raised this matter, and I will repeat it because it seems to need some stressing, that the Democrats wanted two things: The prohibition of the importation of material which gratuitously depicts violence and cruelty with sexual aspects, which we have achieved, and also the compulsory classification, in fact censorship, of X-rated material coming into the country. As I have said, we have an undertaking from the Attorney-General that that will be achieved by 8.45 on Thursday morning. If that does not happen, we will be after some sensitive part of his anatomy. We have achieved those objectives. Where the regulation is concerned, we do not intend to pursue the Government. However, I make it plain that the Australian Democrats believe it is disgraceful that the Government forced us to move this disallowance motion as a lever because the Government was too intractable to agree earlier to the reasonable community-supported changes we wanted, which in the end it was forced to do. This matter must proceed today. If it is not voted on before we adjourn tonight, the regulations will be disallowed. The Democrats will not support disallowance of the Customs regulations, because we have achieved the important and worthy objective we have sought all along. However, as I said in my Press release, those who do vote for disallowance will be casting their votes on the side of the purveyors of violent and cruel pornography. I cannot believe that the members of the Liberal Party do not understand this. Of course they do. Why have they sunk to the degree of political cynicism that they want to destroy something that has been painfully and difficultly achieved? I know Senator Harradine is sincere in his own way in this matter, although misguided. Liberal senators, especially Senator Durack, know full well that what I say is true. But they have persisted in an operation in which they do not believe and which they know to be perverse. They are trading on the complexity of this matter and on the highly charged emotionalism with which it is rightly regarded in the community. We have evidence that publicity has been given in a completely cynical way to churches and other groups in Australia of a misleading campaign and those who gave it knew full well that it was not true and that to support disallowance of these regulations would indeed open the floodgates and expose the community to a further flood of pornography. My colleague in the New South Wales Legislative Council, the Hon. Elizabeth Kirkby, was shown clips of such material earlier this year. I will quote some of the milder details in a letter to me on the subject to make it plain to honourable senators that it is very important that violent and cruel material should be kept out of this country and that not another day should pass in which it is not kept out. Some of the milder material in her letter referred to: A woman being scalped and the blood running down her face and the scalp being drawn off the skull in close-up. . . . . Men and women being whipped, razor slashed, disembowelled and finally decapitated. That is the kind of material that we ought to look out for, yet Opposition senators come in here and have the impudence to object to the fact that I have said to them that if they disallow this regulation they will let such material in again. I say to those honourable senators that they should consult their consciences and think carefully about it because the regulation as it stands now absolutely forbids such situations. I exhort the Attorney-General and any of the people concerned, such as censors and classifiers, to make sure that the regulation is imposed in this country to the limit, without exception, without any kind of mercy for anybody who attempts otherwise. I suggest to honourable senators that if that is done we will have achieved something of great value in this country, because it is wrong, I agree, that children should see that kind of vile material or that there should be the faintest prospect of it. We do not want it in this country for any reason whatsoever and there is no excuse for its being here. To take an extension from that statement and say that any kind of erotic or pornographic material has to be banned because Opposition senators think it should be banned is taking an extension which is not justified. I have no wish to impose any ideas of mine on the community. I suggest to honourable senators that they ought to think very carefully before they propose such things. Perhaps Senator Durack and other members of his Party have never seen that kind of material and do not believe it exists. I wonder whether that is the case. I suppose that could be one reason for their voting in favour of the disallowance of this useful regulation in its amended form. But I can assure honourable senators that such material does exist and could well become freely available again if they allow the old regulations to come back in place. I urge the Opposition to reconsider its view and to vote against the disallowance of this amended regulation, because the original reasons for its disallowance have disappeared and because of the risk engaged if they do. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.47) —As gently as I can say it, I have rarely heard in this chamber a speech by a member of the Senate who has less grasp of a subject than that which I have just heard from Senator Mason. It is quite obvious that he has not read the report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He, with the Australian Democrats, voted that the Customs and publications regulations and the publications ordinance be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to ascertain certain things. These are contained in the report. It is quite obvious not only that he has not taken the trouble to read the report but also that he has applied his preconceived ideas to this issue, blackguarding those of us who have studied this matter extensively and worked on the Committee to help bring down this report. Furthermore, having virtually denied us the opportunity of adequately debating this matter in the interests of the public, what did Senator Mason say? He said there would be consequences if we were to disallow the regulation, and he particularly pointed out the consequences which would flow if we disallowed the amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Let me say that both the majority report and the dissenting report-that is to say the Senate as a whole except Senator Mason- Senator Walters —And the Democrats. Senator HARRADINE —I do not know about the others; they can speak for themselves . The Senate as a whole, except Senator Mason, said that the amendments restrict the power of the Commonwealth to control the importation of hard core pornography. Senator Mason —Put it in context and read what is in the report. Senator HARRADINE —I am about to read what is in the report. It is stated on page 6: If it is assumed that the term-- that is the term 'hard core pornography'-- is equivalent to or covered by the old references to 'indecent or obscene' and ' unduly emphasise matters of sex' . . . or are likely to encourage depravity', then the lack of these words in the new law is a restriction. That is to say, it is a restriction to the power that is in the old law. The majority report says more positively that these regulations legalise for the first time the unrestricted importation into Australia of all types of hard core pornography, including child pornography, and all publications, which includes videos, no matter how violent, how cruel, how blasphemous, indecent, obscene or likely to encourage depravity or incite a crime-except terrorism-provided that ' in the opinion of the Attorney-General' they do not contain a picture of a child depicted in such a manner as would cause offence to a reasonable adult person or a picture 'gratuitously' depicting violence or cruelty. I turn to the document of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) which outlines the comparison between the pre-existing law and the existing law that is being sought to be disallowed. Not only is it recognised by the majority report that the new law restricts the power contained under the pre-existing regulations-of course, as I have said, the dissenting report makes that crystal clear-but also the pre-existing law said that these were prohibited imports. It applied to goods that are 'blasphemous, indecent or obscene or unduly emphasise matters of sex, horror, violence or crime or are likely to encourage depravity and to advertising matter relating to such goods'. None of that is in the new regulation, save and except pictorial child pornography and pictorial violence. I hope that Senator Mason might see his way clear to apologise to the Senate for the display of ignorance as to what is contained in the pre-existing law and in the existing law. In addition to that, the ultimate determinant for the pre-existing law was the courts. I refer, as my authority for that, to the book entitled Customs and Excise Law by E. J. Cooper. It is stated on page 100 quite clearly that the ultimate decision in respect of pre-existing regulation 4A will be made by the courts. Under the new regulation 4A the ultimate determinant is none other than the opinion of the Attorney- General. We, in the dissenting report, make it clear that it is totally unfair to have this issue the subject purely of administrative decision and not subject to judical review. That is a most important point and an important matter for the Senate to consider. We made it perfectly clear in the dissenting report that we consider that the package of delegated legislation referred to the Committee introduces such fundamental change that it is more appropriate for parliamentary enactment. Senator Mason boasted about taking out the word 'violent'. That was the deal and the price of his lousy vote. In his Press statement he now says that he is not worried about that; he is going to agree to the further draft amendments by the Attorney-General which broaden the types of violent material that can come in. I might say that the majority report says, for the information of Senator Mason, that the draft amendments, which he said in his Press statement were okay with him, restrict the powers of the Commonwealth more so than the new law since the words 'detailed' and 'considerable' are proposed to be introduced. The big deal that he made with the Attorney-General is regarded, even by the majority report, as restricting the power of the Commonwealth to control the importation of the material to which he objects. Let us go to the question of opening the floodgates. The only reason the material was let in was because the pre-existing law was not enforced. I go on to the next major change that was not addressed by Senator Mason at all. The next major change in the law is effected by regulation 3 of the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment). This confines censorship controls, by way of licensing and registration, to films imported for public exhibition. I want Senator Mason to understand that all other imported films that he is complaining about, including videos, will now be free from the pre-existing licensing and registration requirements. Why does he not read what the Film Censorship Board Chairman, Mrs Janet Strickland, said in evidence to the Mahony Committee? I will not raise this matter unless the Attorney-General raises it. Nothing that Senator Mason has said has been addressed in detail to the Ordinance that is the subject of his disallowance motion. The fact is that the new Classification of Publications Ordinance opens the way for the first time legally in the Australian Capital Territory for the commercial exploitation of hard core pornography. That is what he is voting for. Senator Walters —He just doesn't understand. Senator HARRADINE —Well, if he does not understand, let me explain it to him. Under the pre-existing law, as the dissenting report says, the sale, exhibition, display and distribution or production for gain of objectionable publications was prohibited. The new law legalises and permits this activity in respect of objectionable publications. Objectionable publications are defined in the new Ordinance. What is an objectionable publication under the new ordinance? Senator Jack Evans —What was it under the old one? Senator HARRADINE —If the honourable senator wants to know that, I shall tell him what it was under the old ordinance. Senator Jack Evans —What it really was; not what you say it was. Senator HARRADINE —I am not giving my opinion.The honourable senator is going to allow the Attorney-General to be the arbiter of public morals in the Australian Capital Territory, of all things. Senator Mason and Senator Evans have just told me that that is what they have not done. I will prove to them that that is what they have done. Senator Jack Evans —You have not proven a thing. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator should wait for a minute. He has asked what an objectionable publication was under the old law. In the old law, section 4 reads: 'objectionable' means obscene or unduly emphasising horror, gross cruelty or crimes of violence; 'obscene' includes unduly emphasising matters of sex; Under the new law an objectionable publication is defined as follows: 'objectionable publication' means a publication that- (a) describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person; For the first time in the Australian Capital Territory that material is legally able to be offered for sale or hire, per kind favour of the Australian Democrats . Senator Jack Evans —How about some facts? Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator will vote for the Attorney-General to be the arbiter of public morals in the Australian Capital Territory. The Attorney-General knows who will be the arbiter. Let me prove that. Under the old law it was up to the courts to decide, under the Customs prohibited imports regulations, the issues of obscene or unduly emphasised sex, or this, that or the other. Under the old Australian Capital Territory ordinance it was likewise up to the courts to decide those issues. Now, under the new Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, it will be up to the Attorney-General to decide those matters. Honourable senators should look at section 4A of the new Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Senator Jack Evans —It is not up to the Attorney-General; it is up to the Parliament, and that is what we are debating now. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator proposes to give him the power. The people who will determine where to draw the line in the Australian Capital Territory will be persons appointed under section 7 of Part II of the Classification of Publications Ordinance, which deals with classification officers appointed by the Attorney-General. Senator Jack Evans —And we decide the guidelines. Senator HARRADINE —No, we do not decide the guidelines; they decide the guidelines, you stupid idiot. Senator Mason —I rise on a point of order. Senator HARRADINE —I am sorry, I withdraw that comment, and I apologise to the honourable senator. The duties of these people appointed by the Attorney-General will be to classify publications which are objectionable publications. The only ones that they can refuse to classify-it should be borne in mind that the Attorney-General has not fixed up the violence aspect of the ordinance-are as follows: A classification officer shall refuse to classify a publication where he is satisfied that the publication describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a manner that it offends against the standards of morality . . . The people appointed by the Attorney-General-and not the courts-will say what offends against the standards of morality. It goes on: . . . decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adult persons to the extent that it should not be classified. Those words 'to the extent that it should not be classified' are important. The criteria for classification are set out as follows: A prescribed authority shall, in performing his or its respective functions under the Ordinance, give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles: (a) that adult persons are entitled to read and view what they wish; and (b) that all persons are entitled to protection from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive. Clearly, the words 'to the extent that they should not be classified' are qualified by those criteria for classification, and those criteria for classification are absolute nonsense. Although it says 'that adult persons are entitled to read and view what they wish', the Attorney-General now says that that is not true, that a line must be drawn. Whose line is being drawn? It is his line and the line of his appointees. Senator Jack Evans —Are we appointees or is the Attorney-General? Senator HARRADINE —Do not sidetrack me, please. The second principle to which a prescribed authority shall give effect is this: (b) that all persons are entitled to protection from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive. What a lot of tripe that is in this day and age of high technology. How am I going to protect my kids from exposure to this extreme material, these objectionable publications? We are talking about objectionable publications that are offensive to a reasonable adult person. That is the definition given in the ordinance. How am I to protect my kids from exposure to that? Senator Mason —A girl in a bikini. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Mason does not understand. We are talking about objectionable publications as defined, which for the first time he is going to allow to be commercialised in the Australian Capital Territory. As I said, the second principle to which a prescribed authority shall give effect is this: (b) that all persons are entitled to protection from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive. Section 58 abolishes the common law offence of obscene libel, to the extent to which it applies to objectionable publications and the common law offence of conspiring to corrupt public morals. So (b) is up the chute, too. Criterion (b) is not worth talking about. Senator Gareth Evans —What do you mean '(b) is up the chute'? Senator HARRADINE —Correction; for the sake of Hansard, I should say that 34 (2) (b) is inadequate in that situation. I really feel that all of this builds up to the fact that the rights of individual citizens and the community to the protection of the law are being diminished. This further restricts the ability of parents to protect their children from exposure to the type of material that is contained in publications classified as objectionable by any persons. The only people children are protected from are the managers of restricted classification areas. The Committee has examined this matter very thoroughly and has put down a number of points. It has addressed the point as to whether this issue is of such an important character that it should be dealt with by parliamentary enactment, not by subordinate or delegated legislation. We say at point 13 that the Senate must view very seriously any legislative changes which drastically alter the character of censorship law. We point out that film censorship, especially censorship of imported films, is a matter of grave national importance. We refer to the fact that previously the Committee had considered this matter and in its very first report had said that 'the determination of public policy on a matter of such moment should not be accomplished by departmental regulation' and that the policy 'should be set out in substantive regulation'. That is even more important because the Attorney- General has said that the Classification of Publications Ordinance is 'model legislation'. All citizens of Australia will have the right to have their State Parliaments deal with such matter by parliamentary enactment. The only people who will not be able to do so will be people in the Australian Capital Territory ; they will be denied the right to have us examine the matter with full parliamentary procedures, motions and amendments in the Committee stage. Rather, such matters will be dealt with by Executive government decree. That is not fair to them; and it is certainly not fair on the rest of Australia. Three Australian States have intimated that they will ban X-rated videos and the type of classification 2 publications that are now being dealt with. Yet by these regulations, which we now apparently are not going to disallow, the Government will let those publications into this country. What can be done with the material? It will be sold in the Australian Capital Territory if all the other States knock it back. What a load of rubbish it is. Senator Mason is pre- empting the decision of the New South Wales Parliament in respect of that matter , and he is a senator from the State of New South Wales. This Senate faces a problem tonight. We have been painted into a corner; we have until only 10.30 p.m. to discuss the matter and then to vote on it. We have recommended that the matter contained in the new law be the subject of parliamentary enactment. We have pointed to the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, in its report, stated that in relation to legislation of a particular territory, which is socially innovative or which affects fundamental rights and liberties, the Committee recommends to the Senate that if the Regulations and Ordinances Committee reports that an ordinance is of this nature, then such ordinance should be made subject of a substantive debate in the Senate. I strongly believe that this ordinance most definitely affects the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens, nationally and in the Australian Capital Territory. It is socially innovative and ought to be the subject of full and open parliamentary debate and, if necessary, ought to be disallowed. I put it to the Democrats that there is a disallowance motion in the House of Representatives. The Attorney-General can repeal the regulation and replace it if he wishes; but let us allow the due parliamentary process to run its full course without truncating it tonight. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.15) —I congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances for the balanced and moderate tone of the main report, especially the part of it dealing with the legal effect of existing and proposed changes to Customs regulations and Australian Capital Territory ordinances. I have no quarrel with the judgments there set out about the legal effect of the legislation there dealt with. It is clear that the Committee took a great deal of effort to maintain that tone, as we rather predicted it would, when opposing the reference to the Committee in the first place. That certainly emerges from the terms of the dissenting report which, in addressing the particular question of legislation being more appropriate to be enacted as an Act of the Parliament rather than by way of regulation, does plunge headlong into the very policy judgments which the majority of the Committee thought it the business of the Committee to avoid. I accept that it is possible for reasonable men and women to have different viewpoints on whether the matters in issue here should best or more appropriately be dealt with by Acts of Parliament as distinct from regulations. In the past I have wrestled with that particular question so far as it substantively affects Australian Capital Territory ordinances; but here I simply indicate for the record that I prefer the majority report for the reasons that are there set out. There has, after all, been no shortage of parliamentary deliberation on this matter, including parliamentary deliberation directed quite specifically to particular questions of language as they have arisen in these regulations. I turn now to the merits of the disallowance argument. I think it important to put the debate in context and to remind the Senate of four threshold considerations that have been crucial in the Government's approach to this particular legislative package. In the first place, what we have done has been consistent with decisions of the ministerial council, the representatives of all governments around Australia responsible for censorship matters. It has not represented some flight of unilateral Commonwealth libertarian fancy; it has been the product of very anguished and extensive debate in that forum. It is the case that getting complete uniformity in censorship administration in this country will be a long and slow process, and in fact, I guess is likely never to be wholly achieved. It is the case that Queensland and Tasmania and to a lesser extent Western Australia have indicated reservations about the X-rated aspect of the system. But they are all happy enough to participate in the general administration of the system. They are all happy enough to have the operation of a system of compulsory classification, perhaps with some reservations again in the case of Western Australia, as to whether that is strictly necessary. They are happy for the basic standards to be applied in respect to each of those categories of classification. It is just that some of those States want to try to draw the line in different locations than others. It has ever been thus, as Senator Durack will recall, in the area of literature censorship- Senator Durack —But you were going to have a new dawn of uniformity. Senator GARETH EVANS —Well, we are getting there, Senator. Your cynicism and churlishness are not going to help us get there any quicker. We did not exactly rush to the tape when the honourable senator was administering this portfolio. We are doing our best to get there now. The second background point I make is this: We have acted in accordance with the basic principle-it has been a bipartisan principle for the last decade or more and it would be an unhappy state of affairs were there to be a major resiling from this-that adults should be entitled to see and read what they wish , subject only to not being involuntarily exposed to offensive matter or matter which they would find offensive and subject also to whatever is necessary to protect children particularly from exploitation. The third basic consideration we have had in mind is that laws in this area should reflect so far as possible the attitudes that are actually applying and prevailing out there in the community. One does write a blueprint for the disregard and the disrepute of the law if one enacts laws which are unenforceable, if one tries to enforce rules which are simply not reflected or accepted in the community at large. Whether one likes it or not, whether one finds this material distasteful or repugnant or not, there is very substantial support still, very visibly in the community, albeit not from other sectors of the community which have mounted vociferous campaigns, for continued access to R -rated and X-rated material which many of us in this chamber would intensely dislike. I think we just have to acknowledge that particular reality. That is the environment in which we are legislating; it is not an entirely clean page. Finally, it is important-and this has also been involved in our whole approach to this-that the administration of the law should, so far as humanly possible, be in accordance with the substantive letter of the law itself; that one should not operate in some twilight zone of discretions where the actual practical administration of the law is very far removed from the text of the law. I promised not to talk about the Mahony report, and I will not. But that was the situation that was being addressed by those who worried about the state of Customs administration and the gap that it opened up between, on the face of it, the all embracing language of the previous regulation 4A and the reality of what was enforceable on the ground and what was required to be enforced by successive executive governments, acknowledging the realities of enforcement at the Customs barrier. Moving quickly to the basic elements in the package as they have emerged, both the existing regulations and those which we propose to have in place quite soon and which we will be putting to the Executive Council later this week, the proposed extras extend to those additions to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations which have been circulated and which are designed in part to accommodate the valid point that Senator Harradine made about the hiatus which had emerged so far as the treatment of drug inciting publications were concerned . So far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, of course, it is proposed, and honourable senators have been circulated with material, to have in place within, now, a couple of days further amendments to that ordinance which will in fact make the system of classification which is applicable for videos compulsory rather than voluntary. Might I add as a footnote that the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly tonight in Canberra endorsed the proposal for compulsory classification, considering the draft amendment that had been submitted to it for comment. It also endorsed the package of legislation, which was favourably reported upon by a committee of the House of Assembly, and rejected an amendment to delete the X category from the operation of that package of law in the Australian Capital Territory. So, to the extent that it has been possible to tap the representatives of community opinion such as they presently exist in the Australian Capital Territory through the institutions of the Australian Capital Territory, we have done that and received that kind of reaction. The basic elements in the package fall into two categories-first of all the revision of the import rules and, secondly, the point of sale controls that are to operate internally. As to the import rules and the new amendments to regulation 4A that are contained in the regulations we are looking at tonight and those further amendments which have been circulated for honourable senators' attention, the object here, of course, was to replace the previous open-ended language of regulation 4A, unenforceable and unenforced in its strict literal terms as that legislation was, with five now closely defined categories of description of material which is to be banned absolutely, barred absolutely, at the barrier. Those five categories, as honourable senators will recall from the material that has been circulated, are: Firstly, material relating to child pornography; secondly, material depicting in pictorial form bestiality in a manner likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person-Leda and the Swan need to escape Customs attention presumably but there are other categories which are not so elevated; thirdly, and this has been an attempt to import into the law language which has been the subject of considerable discussion in and out of this chamber, material which 'contains detailed and gratuituous depictions in pictorial form of acts of considerable violence or cruelty or explicit and gratuituous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non- consenting persons'-language, I might add, which was canvassed with the women's advisors to every government in the country including that of Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia at a meeting I attended two weeks ago and which was warmly supported by that meeting of women's advisors to all governments as appropriately reflecting matters of particular concern to that group; fourthly, material promoting or inciting terrorism; and finally, material promoting or inciting the misuse of a drug specified in the Fourth Schedule. There is a pretty open-ended list of drugs in the Fourth Schedule. So what we have is a quite precise description of unconscionable material of a kind which ought not to be allowed into the country at all. The argument is that it is better for the purposes of practical law enforcement and administration to hone in on those things which are capable of detailed barrier control in that way and not to have legislative provisions which, however emotionally satisfying it might be to have the field covered in that open-ended way, were simply not capable of realistic and sensible on the ground administration. Senator Harradine —Why not, when with proper guidelines you could have done it? Senator GARETH EVANS —That would be to take us into the area of executive discretion which the honourable senator, on numerous occasions, has indicated he is unhappy with and it would offend the principle which I sought to articulate earlier on and which I think would be generally accepted by honourable senators, that so far as is practicable and possible the law should reflect on the ground the text of the law rather than some narrow executive discretionary application of it. The other side of the coin so far as the package of material is concerned is, of course, the domestic point of sale and point of hire controls of the kind that are embodied in the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance. The reality is that before the 1983 ordinance was promulgated there were no point of sale controls in the Australian Capital Territory at all. There was no classification system which operated as such. There was no practical limitation on what was sold in the Australian Capital Territory. There was, as a result, a considerable flood of video material being sold without any practical restrictions and there was certainly no inhibitation on the selling of literature. The only constraint was under the 1958 ordinance which had broad obscenity prohibitions, emotionally satisfying again maybe but not workable because they contained within themselves no clear guidelines for their application. There was no way, for example, the police could enforce the kind of distinctions that the present ordinace enables them to enforce, namely to enable the sale of R related type material to adults but not to minors. Under the broad brush approach of the old obscenity law it was either caught by the obscenity provisions or it was not. One could not have that detailed, sensitive, selective, flexible, sliding point of sale control which is of the essence of sensible administration in a censorship regulation system which respects the principle of allowing adults the right to see and read what they want subject to not being offended by material involuntarily confronting them and subject to protections for children. It is just those sorts of detailed controls that one needs to be able to implement those principles and that is what this Australian Capital Territory ordinance seeks to do, which some honourable senators in this place would want to disallow completely and create a vacuum. There will be consumer guidance with the new legislation. There will be penalties for those who wrongly label material. There will be penalties for those who sell or hire restricted or objectionable material to kids, and so there ought to be. There will be penalties for those who display that kind of objectionable material involuntarily exposing all members of the community to it and so there ought to be. That is what this legislation is all about. This is the kind of legislation we are trying to adopt all round the country. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under Sessional Orders I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. [COGNATE DEBATE: CUSTOMS (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT) CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS REGULATIONS CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT)] Debate resumed. Senator GARETH EVANS —Let me finish by saying that there will be differences of opinion about these matters so long as parliamentary debate in this country continues. There will be differences of opinion about the degree of government paternalism which it is appropriate to adopt in legislation of this kind. There will be different degrees of willingness to leave it to the freedom of the individual to go to hell his own way when it comes to getting access to this kind of material. There will be differences of opinion about the extent to which the standards as to what adults are to see and read in this country should be governed by what might be available to children were they to be inadequately supervised by their parents in this respect. I simply ask the Senate to recognise that the Government acknowledges the differences of opinion that exist and will continue to exist in this area. What we have done is simply to act in good faith to solve, as best we can, a difficult social problem and to do so in consultation and co-operation, so far as it is possible in a federal system to get that, with other governments. We will keep developments in this area under close review. We do not pretend, in anything I have said or anyone in the Government has said, that we have uttered the last word so far as censorship regulation or legislation is concerned. We are happy for this to be the subject of ongoing concern and ongoing scrutiny by this Parliament. But we do ask honourable senators to recognise the nature of what is involved in this legislative package and not simply to throw it out the window and to remove the controls which do now exist in a very workable way without very careful thought as to the implications of what is being done. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.34) —Last time we debated this subject in this chamber I attempted to discuss a report of an inquiry into video violence and children. That report was sponsored by a committee of the House of Lords, the House of Commons and some churches. At that time the Government was so opposed to my mentioning that report or referring to it in any way that many points of order were taken. I was allowed to mention the report but I was not allowed to describe it in any detail. Senator Gareth Evans, when he got to his feet, was responsible for what I believe was a completely unpardonable act. He attempted to discredit that report from some newspaper comments about which, according to him, his Department had given him information. I can only presume that they were newspaper reports to which he referred. He certainly did not ring the chairman of the working party, Lord Swinfen. I rang Lord Swinfen during the two-week break in order to find out whether Senator Evans was speaking the truth or just discrediting the report so that he would be able to use it to his own advantage. Lord Swinfen said that what Senator Evans alluded to was completely wrong. Senator Evans is not even bothering to listen. Mr President, I wonder whether we could have the attention of the Minister as he is in charge of this legislation. I am accusing him of grossly distorting the report of the inquiry that I have been referring to. He is completely unaware of what is going on in the chamber. Senator Durack —He could not care less. Senator WALTERS —As the shadow Attorney-General said, he could not care less. How true that is. He could not care less. He does not care. He is a great libertarian; he wears it on his sleeve, but he does not carry it through to any extent in relation to the individual rights of members of the Australian community. However, I spoke to Lord Swinfen. He said that part one of the report had come under some criticism, particularly by the industry. He said that the industry had attempted to take legal proceedings against him. It had tried it but it did not get anywhere. He said that he had continued with the report. He said that the criticism levied by the church group to which Senator Evans referred had been levied because the church group did not understand that the first report contained purely raw data. It was never suggested that the first report was anything else but a report containing raw data. The criticism levied against that report was levied purely because some people drew certain inferences from the raw data that the report did not attempt to draw. There has been no criticism at all of the second report, which substantiates the figures, the raw data, of the first report. Lord Swinfen went on to say that if there was any need to substantiate the report further, we had only to look at the report that had been brought out by the European Community, which substantiates everything in the United Kingdom report. A third report is to be brought down in about September. It is hoped it will be finalised by then. The main reason for the preparation of the report being undertaken in the beginning was that there had been a large increase in violent crimes. There had been an increase of 27 per cent in four years, mainly among young children on other children, on the young and on women. Because of this gross increase in violent crime, the committee holding this inquiry decided to look at all the variables that may have had some input concerning that violence. The factor that was outstanding was the tremendous increase in the number of home videos in that four-year period. The inquiry then started to look at the viewing habits of young children and what they were viewing on videos in their homes. They considered the habits of over 6,000 children. They found that 51.6 per cent of the 13-year-old and 14-year-old children had seen at least one video film which we would class as an X-rated video film. They were mainly horror films, but included films containing acts of cruelty and acts of pornography associated with that cruelty. While we do not have the third report, which will attempt to find out whether there has been any long term influence on those children who have been viewing this pornography and violence, the second report points out that there has been a short term influence. The children are considerably concerned by it. They can have nightmares and they are not able to get the more violent scenes out of their minds. I asked the Attorney-General whether he had looked at the report. He said yes, of course he had, but it was discredited. That is not true. It is a pity that the Attorney is really the worst sort of person. He is not prepared to face facts and thus is keen to murder the messenger because he does not like what the messenger brings him. The Attorney-General is the first law officer of this country. He has set himself an extremely low standard and one that he is finding very difficult to maintain. Today he assured us that the community supports what he is doing. In the original debate in this place he assured us that I, Senator Harradine and the Festival of Light were the only people who would object to this sort of pornography, this sort of violence, these X-rated videos, being allowed into the country. He has learnt from the petitions that have come into this place-I do not know how many there are but probably thousands of them by now in the very short time- Senator Harradine —There were 4,000 in this morning. Senator WALTERS —Yes, I have brought in several petitions on this matter. I do not know how many thousands of signatures we have had come to this place on such petitions. The Attorney will at least know that it is not just Senator Harradine , me and the Festival of Light who object very strongly to what he is doing to this country. Senator Lewis said that a Victorian psychologist wrote to Senator Evans pointing out that in South Australia the rape figures went up considerably . Certainly this was the case during the Dunstan years when we know very well that there was a great relaxation of all sorts of pornography and violence depicted in all sorts of ways. If we compare those figures with the figures in Queensland, we see that there was a marked difference between the two States. The psychologist believed that this issue should be looked at very carefully. He does not say that his findings are conclusive, that the trends ought to be looked at and that the Attorney-General should be aware of them. At the moment there is not even a Minister in the chamber. We have only one Labor senator present in this place. I object very strongly to the Minister's method of handling this. (Quorum formed) I object very strongly to the Attorney- General walking out of the chamber when he is meant to be in charge of this matter. He pays such little regard to the debate in this place that he does not believe it necessary for him even to be here. He knows he has the votes of the Australian Democrats. He knows, in his own words, that he has bought their lousy votes. He did it last time and he has done it again. He has bought, in his own words, the lousy votes of the Democrats. So why does he have to worry? He can go out of this chamber in such a cynical way and leave the Senate to debate this. In the way he carries on he really pays very little regard to being the first law officer in Australia. I am thoroughly disgusted with his attitude. As I have already said, the Attorney, in his cowardly fashion, tried to discredit the report to which I referred. He goes much further than that. What he has done, and done very successfully in these last few days, is to hoodwink Senator Mason. Senator Mason is, I feel so sorry to say, just so naive and so brainless that Senator Evans can twist him around his little finger whever he likes. He has done it again this time. He has, as he says, bought his lousy vote . I will explain to Senator Mason, if I possibly can, just where he has gone wrong. There may be some people outside this place wondering why the Democrats did not take up the option of having a member on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances because a position was made available for them on that Committee. If anybody wonders why they did not take it up, we have the answer here in black and white. We have before us a news release put out by Senator Mason. The Democrats did not want to be on that Committee and to be a part of the obvious response of the majority. The whole Committee came down with a decision. If the Democrats had been represented on that Committee maybe they would have understood this issue. But they would have been locked into the position that the lack of these new words in the new law in relation to hard core pornography-to use the term that the Committee was happy to use-is restrictive. That does not mean that it is restrictive to the people. It means that it is restrictive to the Government's being able to use its powers. I am quite sure that Senator Mason was so confused that he thought it wa restrictive to the legislation. The report also states: The draft amendments propose to vary the description to be ''explicit and gratuitous depictions . . . of sexual violence against non-consenting persons'' which is a restriction when compared with the new law. So I say to Senator Mason that the proposed draft law is even more restrictive. That was the decision of the whole Committee. If the Democrats had decided to appoint a representative to that Committee, and had taken up the position that was made for them, perhaps they would have understood this issue and would not have made such fools of themselves as they have done tonight. There is no doubt that the Democrats have made absolute fools of themselves. They have been hoodwinked by the Attorney-General and have been played once again for what they are. We know what has happened before. Honourable senators will remember the situtation some time ago when Senator Haines claimed she had made great progress with Dr Blewett and had got all sorts of amendments to Medicare. What she had got from Dr Blewett was permission for the funds to accept patients' benefit claims. She got permission from Dr Blewett that the funds could forward patients ' benefits claims to Medicare. That was very nice. But her next door neighbour, I or anybody else, could have done so. Senator Haines made great play of the fact that she had wrung this out of Dr Blewett. The fund had to put a stamp on the claim to send it off. Now we have Senator Mason being hoodwinked in exactly the same fashion by the Attorney-General. Senator Withers —That wouldn't be hard. Senator WALTERS —Frankly, as has just been said, it would not be hard. Why do the Democrats not think for themselves? Why are they always just an appendix of the Australian Labor Party? They are never anything else. They vote with the Labor Party on every single issue. In the news release Senator Mason has put out , he says it is a highly complex but important matter. Who is he kidding? It is not complex. Does he think that by putting in his news release that it is highly complex he is going to diddle the people of Australia into thinking that maybe they do not understand it all, and why the Democrats are now going to vote against the disallowance motion they moved. It is certainly not in any way a complex matter. It is a very simple matter and should be said to be such. Mr President, you may remember that on 4 April, after having made a speech, I said that I wished to correct a few words. I said that it was obvious that the Democrats would not support their disallowance motion. After I said that, there was a great fuss. Senator Mason and Senator Jack Evans both carried on. On 5 April Senator Evans got up and abused me for having dared to say that they were going to vote against their own disallowance motion. He said: That is an absolute distortion of our position. Senator Mason —So it was, at the time. Senator WALTERS —'So it was, at the time', Senator Mason says. Senator Evans continued: Not at any stage have the Australian Democrats announced or indicated that they were not going to support the motion of disallowance put forward by Senator Mason. Not at any stage has it been said inside or outside the chamber. So I refute absolutely the claim made by Senator Walters. I said that we would wait and see. Well, we have waited and we do see that the Democrats are voting against their own disallowance motion. It was on 4 April that I understood that they would, that they had backed off. Let us look at the sort of rubbish we are not going to allow. First of all I will read the original legislation. Senator Gareth Evans keeps on saying that there would be a hiatus, a gap, with nothing in its place. Let me say what will be in its place, because this is the legislation that, should this disallowance go through, will still apply. All he will have to do is implement it. It says: Subject to the next succeeding sub-regulation, a film shall not be registered and advertising matter shall not be passed, under this Part if, in the opinion of the Board- (a) the film or advertising matter is blasphemous, indecent or obscene; The Attorney says no police officer can make that decision. It is very simple; the court makes the decision as to what is obscene. The criterion is whether or not the film or advertising matter is likely to be injurious to morality or to encourage or incite crime. There is not a hiatus; there is not a gap. There is nothing except legislation already in place if this disallowance goes through. This is what we have in its place: Subject to this section, where the Censorship Board decides that a film- (a) depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable person . . . It sounds to me, from that, as though we will not have that material but no, if all those descriptions apply and it is material containing revolting or abhorrent phenonema in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person, we allow it in and call it R- or X-rated material. We have proof in the report I have mentioned tonight that once it is allowed into the country, once it is allowed into homes, children will see it. There is no doubt about that. It is not just one report I quote; I refer also to a report from the European Economic Community. This argument has been substantiated by several reports, and yet this Attorney-General cares so little about the opinion of the population generally that he is willing to run the risk because he says we must not attempt to act as parents and if parents want their kids to see this material, so what? It is not up to him to say they must not. He will just pass regulations and say that it cannot be sold or hired to children. If we want to know about what cannot be sold or hired to children, the front page of today's Canberra Times underlines particularly what can be and what is hired by children . We are told of a 14-year old teenager who went to quite a number of video shops around Canberra and was able to take exactly what she liked, including X- rated stuff. The Attorney says that this is a problem that has been overcome by his regulations. Senator Mason sits there and says: 'I don't understand it all but I am sure it will be all right if the Attorney says so'. Let us consider what we are not allowed to see. The Ordinance says: The Censorship Board shall refuse to approve the classification of a film where the Board is satisfied that the film depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a manner that it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adult persons to the extent that it should not be classified. Can anyone in this place tell me the difference? I defy anyone to do so. Senator Archer —It is Evans-talk. Senator WALTERS —Exactly; as Senator Archer says, it is Evans-talk. Nobody else could possibly tell the difference. It seems quite ironical that, while we are moving to allow all this rubbish in, with Senator Evans as the sole arbitrator for the Australian Capital Territory, I should get a memo from the Swedish Embassy. I asked for information regarding new laws and, in reply, the memo says : . . . pornographic shows were forbidden by means of an amendment to the laws on Public Order. That decision was taken in 1982. We know that Sweden was the first country to open the doors to pornographic, violent and similar sorts of material. Sweden said that at that time it realised that the standard was very low but because the industry had to keep the appetites of the viewers whetted the standards continued going down until now Sweden is moving to prohibit the shows, and our Attorney-General is moving to bring them in. It seems to me in view of the letters from the Victorian group of psychiatrists and the petitions that have been brought both before this place and the other place to be an incredible indictment of the Attorney-General that he is so insensitive to the wishes of the Australian people that not only does he not attend to debate in this chamber but when he is in the chamber he talks to other people throughout the debate. He has no intention of changing his mind. He has bought the Democrats' vote. He has , as he said himself, said 'All right, if it takes that to buy your lousy vote' and he bought their lousy vote. That is all he is interested in. It is the same old saying: 'If you have the numbers you do not have to worry'. The Attorney- General knows that he has really diddled Senator Mason over this. Senator Mason is completely unaware of what he has done. He has not the brains to understand what he has done, but the Attorney-General has-- Senator Gareth Evans —That is offensive. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will withdraw the reference in respect of Senator Mason. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, have it your own way. He has the brains to understand what he has done. I think personally, Mr President, that it is a bigger insult for me to say that he has the brains to understand what he has done tonight, but if that is your will so be it. I believe it is a higher insult and I ask the Attorney-General to-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters should withdraw that remark in respect of the honourable senator. Senator WALTERS —Which one? That he has the brains or that he has not? The PRESIDENT —The one that I earlier asked Senator Walters to withdraw. Senator WALTERS —I have withdrawn my remark that he has not the brains. I have said that he has the brains, but it seems to me an incredible situation that he has now changed his side and is going to vote against it. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(11.03) —I enter this fascinating debate on censorship. It is fascinating because it is one of those debates in which the beauty of the liberal theory on censorship comes into conflict with the harsh reality of how that works in practice. At the outset I declare an interest in this matter because I am Chairman of the Australian Film Institute. Our policy is that there should be no censorship of films at all. The reason for this is that the AFI is a cultural organisation and is aware of the great damage done to films by unwise censorship because films can be, and frequently are, works of art. Of course, not all films are works of art, but contemporary censors are very rarely good judges of the quality of works of art. One can cite many historical examples of works of art which in their time were regarded as outrageous and depraved. They are now seen in their true perspective of being great and worthy works of art. We must ensure that we do not have mutilation of films that are genuine works of art by censors. This is, I believe, an artistic outrage. We must not have a situation in which a film like the one by Oshima can have additional editing by Mrs Strickland. This seems to me an absurdity. It is nearly as absurd as when a replica of Michelangelo's statue of David, which had stood for many centuries in Italy without doing any great or obvious harm to Italian morals, was brought out here and it was thought necessary to affix to it a fig leaf which looked surprisingly indecent. That sort of thing, I believe, is absurd. That most we can say with respect to whether showing films of this nature does harm to those who see them is that the evidence is inconclusive. If it did do any great harm, surely the most depraved people in the community would be the members of the Film Censorship Board who have to watch them in very large quantities. There is, I would say, no evidence at all that seeing this material does any significant harm. In fact, there is some evidence that it is a catharsis for people who are somewhat disturbed. This is all right in the case of films because control of access to films is practicable. But in the case of television and video an entirely new dimension is introduced because control of access to these forms of viewing is in practice impossible. I believe that in looking at this problem we should follow two principles. The first is that it is no part of the role of a government to decide what adults may see and read in private. The second one, which overrides the first, is that governments have a responsibility to protect minors from seeing material of a violent or sexual nature that would disturb them. Those two principles have to be looked at in relation to what we do about the problem of videos. I support the disallowance motions before this Senate because I think the approach of the Government is fundamentally wrong. In the case of films it is possible to control access. One can rate films and warn potential audiences of their nature so that the audiences are not wantonly shocked. One can control access to R- rated and X-rated material and ensure that people below the age of, say, 18 do not get in. That works pretty well. But in the case of television, which is the matter I now deal with, there is no such control. One cannot be sure who will see a television program. The situation would not be changed if we went for cable television. I am sure we would have the same wish that what is available on television must be controlled. What is suitable for films where access is controlled is unsuitable for television because access is uncontrolled. It is no use saying that access to television can be controlled by family because we all know that that is impossible. Families are not always there. Families do not exercise this sort of control. I think it is therefore up to the Government to do this and it has been exercising that in the area of television. Senator Gareth Evans —What do you say about books, Senator? Senator HAMER —I am dealing only with film at the moment. Books are another issue, but I will deal with them if the honourable senator likes. I am dealing now with television and I turn to the area that is really concerning us, and that is video. The fundamental mistake being made by the Government in this area is that it is treating video as if it were a film rather than television. After all, all the videos will be seen on television screens and I believe that the same methods of control should be applied to video material as are applied to television. I put to the Attorney-General that the principle I would like to see applied is that the Government does not attempt to control what types of films are projected but controls the audiences to ensure that people under 18 years old do not see material we would not like them to see. With regard to video the Government should rate it to warn people what is there. The Government should not permit the sale or hire from video shops of R-or X-rated material because there is no possible way it can control that. If the Government treats video in the same way as television we will have a satisfactory answer to our problem. People who wish to see R-and X-rated material can if they wish put on their raincoats and go down to one of the cinemas where this type of material is shown . Senator Gareth Evans —They cannot see X material. There is no X rating for public screenings. You know that. Senator HAMER —I would not mind if there were. I am saying that we can control the access to films of people who should not see them, that is, minors. We cannot control access to video material, therefore the only control we can have is at the point of sale. I submit that the answer to the problem is to control access in cinemas, while allowing them to show what they wish, but to control video at the point of sale and not allow anything to be sold or hired from a video shop which we would not be prepared to transmit on television. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.10) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) introduced a series of new regulations governing procedures for publications to apply as from 1 February this year. Those regulations were considered in this place and moves were made at two levels, by the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine, for this disallowance. Debate took place upon the motion for their disallowance. There have been three stages by the Attorney- General on this matter, which is not unusual. At the first stage the Attorney- General asserted that what he had put forward was absolutely right. At the second stage he said the same thing. At the third stage he said the same thing. There have been three main changes. In the course of this the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was asked to look at these regulations and to compare them with the pre-existing regulations; that is, the old Act, if I can use that term. The Committee was asked to make the comparison. It was asked to decide whether the new regulations restricted or limited the powers of the Commonwealth with regard to the control of censorship or the distribution and sale of publications. The interesting thing to remember is that this reference to the Committee was made by the Opposition and the Democrats. A fascinating situation is that the Democrats have reached their decision tonight without having addressed themselves at all to the Committee that they saw fit to have inquire into the matter and which they regarded at the time as being of some considerable significance in making a judgment. At the time the Democrats and the Opposition regarded the referral of the matter to the Committee as a test. They wanted to know whether the new regulations as put in place by the Attorney-General and subject to disallowance had less power to deal with the problem of censorship and distribution than the old law. That, of course, ought to have been the subject of discussion tonight. The fact of the matter is that the Committee unanimously reported, page by page , that there were fewer powers under the new regulations. Honourable senators will see that pages 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the report which is before them stated that the Committee unanimously agreed that in very significant matters there had been a restriction of powers, or fewer powers, given to the Commonwealth to deal with this matter. This was the fundamental of the situation. I pick it up. The classic is stage 2 of this little saga and the Democrats did not refer to it tonight. The holy words which were mentioned tonight were 'the price of a lousy vote'. One will remember that the Democrats changed their minds regarding the disallowance of the regulations when it was agreed by the Government-they did not tell the Opposition and the Senate at the time-that it would delete the word 'extreme' from the phrase 'extreme violence'. This was done behind doors and late at night and the Senate was not told. The price was that the disallowance would be set aside by the Democrats if the word 'extreme' went out. Senator Mason has failed to understand that the very price that he paid has now been reversed. This is not important any more. There must have been another bargain. In the draft amendments which are put before the Senate in the future it will be no longer a question of violence; the term will be 'detailed and considerable violence'. That is very interesting. If this was the linchpin on which the Democrats rested before, why have they not reversed that and said-- Senator Archer —He is busy with his papers. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Of course, and why not? I am not surprised at this at all because their logic fails. In tonight's disgraceful Press statement by Senator Mason he set out to do the reverse of the truth. He knew quite well that the unanimous report of the Senate Committee said that a new Act of the Hawke Government would take away the powers in many ways to restrict pornography; that is, they were wider and more libertine than was the old Act. That is the fact. Let me say again that contrary to the Press statement of Senator Mason, the very reverse was true. The Senate Committee said unanimously that Senator Gareth Evans's new regulations provided more libertine situations. Four pages of the report indicate, step by step, that that is so. Whatever the reason why the Democrats changed their minds, they cannot rest upon any suggestion that a return to the old law would be more libertine. This Senate has said, by way of its very prestigious Committee, that the reverse is true. The Senate has said that those who vote for these new regulations to stay in place will be limiting the power of the Commonwealth to control pornography. That is an important situation. What the Democrats are doing tonight is supporting a government in reducing the power of the Commonwealth to control pornography, violence and blasphemy. I repeat that because that is what the Senate Committee has said. The Senate Committee has said that there is far less power in the new regulations to control these things than in the old. Let us demolish what is one of the most outrageous pieces of cheapskate activity that we have seen, the attempt by the Democrats to explain themselves away. I repeat that the Senate Committee has said unanimously, and has said it to the Democrats, that the new regulations are less powerful, are more powerless, than the old ones to handle the question of pornography, violence and sexual extremes. When Senator Mason gets up in this place and says that if the Liberals and the National Party of Australia were to support the disallowance they would be widening violence he is, in fact, saying the very reverse of what the unamious report said. Let everybody in the community understand that. Let all people understand it. The fact of the matter is that the very thing on which the Democrats pinned themselves was that they wanted any kind of qualification on the word 'violence' to be removed. Honourable senators should not forget that. That was the behind- the-door situation. They wanted the removal of the word 'extreme' and the plain use of the word 'violence'. Now that there is to be substituted in its place the words 'detailed and considerable violence' that is all right. Anything will do as an excuse. This report has shown, step by step, the restriction. A restriction on the use of hard drugs is to be put into the draft amendments, very unwillingly, because the Attorney-General pinned his flag to the original regulations. It is no good the Attorney-General getting up here tonight and claiming virtue. He claimed virtue for the original regulations. He said they were exactly right; they were self-contained and they would do all the things required. Step by step, as with every other thing that he has ever done, he has had to retreat. It is like the referendum retreat that he has made over the years. So it is no good listening to his kinds of entreaties or those of the Democrats. We forced the Attorney-General into putting hard drugs into the foreshadowing regulations. We have forced him into a whole host of situations. The Democrats ignore that. What nonsense is to be found in the draft amendments! The report of the Senate Standing Committee, at paragraph 12 of page 7, states: The draft amendments propose to vary the description to be ''explicit and gratituous depictions . . . of sexual violence against non-consenting persons'' which is a restriction when compared with the new law. What kind of perverse mind is it that says that it is all right to show explicit and gratuitous depictions of sexual violence if those who are doing it have consented to do so? It is as though it was some kind of matter relating to the two actors that would decide the virtue or vice involved? Does it mean that if the two actors agree everyone may see it. There can be explicit and gratuitous depictions of sexual violence so long as it is with consenting persons. Let us look at the matter. So long as everybody knows that the two people doing this horribly corrupt and obscene act are consenting to it, it is not obscene. It is as though the actors were the test of virtue and not the viewers. This, of course, shows the corruption of the whole situation. We have to point out, for example, that in regard to gross obscenities-the Catholic bishops have drawn attention to this-the old barring of blasphemy no longer exists. That was another restriction. That does not worry the Democrats at all. The Deomcrats would say that our returning to the old regulations which stated that obscenity and blasphemy were wrong is a form of libertine behaviour, because that is how warped are their minds. A little matter of no concern to the Democrats is that item 14 of the report states: The new law restricts the pre-exiting power by amending the Customs ( Cinemotagraph Films) Regulations to delete the previous requirement for Censorship Board registration. Is it all right to have no registration, compared with the past regulations? It is late at night and this is a profoundly important matter and I have previously spoken on the principles involved. I believe that what is happening is quite profound. The difference between the old law and the new regulations is, on the admission of the Senate Committee and of everyone who has viewed them, profound. If these are not minor changes but major changes to substance, clearly two things should happen. This is not a matter for subordinate legislation and it is not a matter for regulations; it is a matter for substantive law. That is the first point. Clearly, the situation simply boils down to this: If we have to make a decision on what the community is to see, read and hear-I refer to video as well as films -we have to ask the members of the adult community what they want to be allowed to be seen not only by them but also by the young. The fact of the matter is that whatever comes in will be seen by the young. There is nothing in the structure of what the Attorney-General has proposed which provides any framework to protect the young. A test case yesterday in the Australian Capital Territory proved that that was nonsense. It was a demonstration that the whole pack of cards would crumble because there was no protection. We have a very simple situation. We have to decide what adults would want to draw the line on in regard to the actual limitation of circulation within the community in order that the young will not be subject to these influences. There is a fundamental fallacy in what the Attorney-General has said. He got up and said with the voice of God: 'Our principle is that adults must be able to see, hear or view in private whatever they like'. Then he said: 'PS, I did not really mean that. There are certain things they will not be allowed to see'. So he, the paternal father, will decide that. When I spoke before I put this query: Why should any one person make this decision? Who is to decide where the bottom line shall be drawn? Is it not an old fashioned practice to go and ask the community what it feels and what it would want either for itself or for its children? But no, the Attorney-General starts on a completely false premise and reaches completely false conclusions. As I said, it is late at night, and it is nonsense to say that the proposed changes are minor. If we look at the Attorney- General's statement on the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publication, we will see that he very clearly states that barriers to the importation of hard core pornography, other than child pornography publications which incite terrorism and publications containing extreme violence or sexual violence, have been lifted. In other words, hard core pornography now has no barriers, except those qualifications. Senator Gareth Evans —Except at point of sale. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yesterday it was proved that at the point of sale there were no barriers. Senator Gareth Evans —Rubbish. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —How can that be rubbish when a test case proved that this was so. The first set of regulations was wrong-they had to be varied for Peter's pence; they had to be varied for the price of a lousy vote and even though it has now been turned around the lousy vote still sticks-but that was not good enough. The Attorney-General had to start again and came up with a completely new set of regulations. In this new set we have a widening of the libertarian approach. What nonsense! We are now told that it is all right to have explicit and gratuituous depictions of sexual violence provided they involve consenting persons. Senator Gareth Evans —Providing it is a depiction of consent. You have missed the point. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Attorney-General talks like the brain fever bird- yattety, yattety, yat. I say again that all he can do is react and react. He has had three goes at these regulations. He will get them right at some time. He has not got anything else right yet. I repeat: The draft amendments- these are not my words; these may be found in the unanimous report of the Senate Standing Committee, and the Attorney-General may go yattety, yattety, yat again- - propose to vary the description to be ''explicit and gratiutous depictions . . . of sexual violence against non-consenting persons'' which is a restriction when compared with the new law. Senator Coates —The new law. What about the old law? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I have said that. As the honourable senator knows, the only qualification relating to the old law was that it was doubtful as to its meaning in this regard. So there could well have been a restriction on the old law as well. When the Attorney-General reacted just then regarding the subject of the depiction of sexual violence, he was not reacting against me; he was reacting against the unanimous report of the Committee. That is how we stand at the moment. Let me demolish the theories one by one. The Committee was set up in order to look at the regulations and to study whether there was a diminution or an accretion of power between the old and the new. It was set up with the Democrats wanting that information in order to make a judgment on disallowance. That was quite clear. What happened? The Committee reports that in fact there has been a diminution of power to control and the Democrats have sold their souls. But again the Attorney-General, now having had three goes, comes back with a series of draft amendments which go further again away from the old law. Of course, they are so substantial in their nature that they challenge the very substance of the beliefs of the past. If that is so, the dissenting report must have merit in saying that one cannot do by regulation techniques those things which are going to change the law vastly. I therefore commend the report, including its dissenting report. I must say that in my time in the Senate I have never heard such a disgraceful contribution, both verbally and by Press release, as that of Senator Mason. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.31) —Much has been said in this debate on the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), and I shall not go over some of the arguments that have been dealt with quite adequately. But the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances specifically refers to the Australian Capital Territory and the role of the Commonwealth. It clearly sets out that the regulations are less restrictive than has been the case previously. This is referred to in several paragraphs. In particular I want to refer to paragraph 15, which states: In addition, under the Cinematograph Films Regulations, videos not for public exhibition are no longer required to be registered by the Censorship Board. In the Australian Capital Territory, which is the one area in which the Commonwealth has direct responsibility over point of sale operations, many publications regarded as objectionable are now available subject to restrictions on their display and distribution which are expressly designed to limit the exposure of children of certain types of publication. There have been comments over recent weeks from Archbishop Carroll who has referred to the flood of this material into the Australian Capital Territory. It is clearly available to children in homes because not all parents can supervise all children 24 hours a day. I imagine that even the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is not able to do that, or would suggest that it is actually possible. I understand that since 1 February 1984 until 7 May of this year 171 films have been allowed in and have been classified with an X rating. I am told that not one such film has been refused classification. It is very clear that they are freely available and it also would appear to be fairly clear as to what the Attorney-General intends. It is clear that that is his standard as to what should be freely available to children in this community. I wish to refer to some of the contributions that were made to a debate in the House of Assembly on 27 March 1984, which gave an indication of what some of the members of the House of Assembly thought on the matter. Mrs Cains, moving an amendment, said: A considerable amount of material which was not previously allowed into Australia is now available. She went on to say: From the Attorney-General's own Department there is a sheet which says 'That the barriers to the importation of hard core pornography other than child pornography, publications which incite terrorism and publications containing extreme violence and/or extreme sexual violence have been lifted.' She repeated: Barriers to the importation of hard core pornography have lifted. Ms Robin Walmsley, an Australian Labor Party member of the House of Assembly, spoke in the same debate and, in referring to Mrs Cains's comments, said: It is rare that we hear her quoting from the words of any Women's Advisory Council, particularly that of New South Wales, but I am delighted that she is, and in this instance I share her concern that the current regulations to the Customs Ordinance do enable material to come into Australia which clearly are exploitation of women. She went on to say: I think it is very important that this sort of material is not only banned but prohibited, and should be totally frowned upon by this society. It is exploitation in its most extravagant form. We do not want to see women made subjects of this unfortunate display. So I support her, I am concerned. I would have thought that all women would be concerned at the trend of this Ordinance and the regulations. Mrs Hocking, also a member of the House of Assembly, spoke in the same debate. She said in part: I believe it was misleading when we had a press release of 25 January from the Attorney-General which said over and over again that there was to be censorship of publications and video tapes when in fact it was known all along that the Customs Regulations would bring in an open season approach to the admission of all types and any type of hard core pornography into this country. And so the debate went on. It is clear that that is the case. The situation is that Objectionable Publications Ordinance 1958 was within the control of the Attorney-General to enforce, but he chose not to do so because it was not the sort of ordinance that he wanted to enforce. Similarly, it is clear that he has no intention of enforcing legislation dealing with brothels in the Australian Capital Territory. If this Ordinance and the regulations were disallowed there is law available which could be enforced if he had the will to do so. It may be that some amendments would be required at some stage, but they should be done, as has been suggested in the dissenting report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, by proper legislation and not in this form. It is referred to as model legislation but there does not appear to be much real agreement between the States and Territories as to what should occur. The explanatory statement from the Attorney-General in January of this year said that the regulations had been drawn up in consultation with State and Northern Territory governments. I do not know how one could really classify that statement in the light of the evidence that three States have said that they will ban X-rated videos. It seems to me that the Attorney-General was attempting to convince people very strongly as to what they should do, and he certainly has succeeded as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned. It is certainly worth having a second look at the contributions to the debate made in this place on 4 April 1984. I quote from the Hansard which, in referring to representation, states: The overall weight of such representations has been, almost without exception, to express alarm at the prospect of this kind of extreme material becoming prospectively available even if it is given an X rating. Further on it is stated: However, I believe that the Senate must look at them and, if possible, ensure that the community view on them is accommodated, Again it is stated: It would be extremely naive of anybody to suggest that in this one area of X- rated video tapes there should be unfettered and untrammelled freedom where there may be evidence that there is harm to the community. They were the words of Senator Mason in this debate. Senator Archer —Senator who? Senator REID —Senator Mason from New South Wales, on 4 April 1984. What evidence have we had that the community has changed its view since 4 April 1984 or that the flood of representations that Senator Mason had received up until that time has suddenly changed to bring about the way he has indicated he will vote tonight? He went on further to say: It is obvious that these video tapes and discs do not merely affect the adults who buy and view them. The victims of the violence inspired by sadistic and cruel pornography are almost always those who are physically weaker in the society. I suggest that the Attorney-General bears that in mind. They are usually women and children; they are the innocent victims. They have a right to be protected against even the possibility of that kind of assault. As I said before, these tapes are almost exclusively degrading and offensive to women. I have had submissions from most of the feminist movements. They are in favour of rescinding the new X rating altogether so that the R rated movies would again be the most explicit allowed. That may surprise the Attorney, but that is a fact. Adults who buy or hire these videos are not the only ones who are exposed to them. They are the words of Senator Mason on 4 April 1984. Senator Teague —Whose words are those? Senator REID —They were Senator Mason's words. When I contributed to the debate, I think the next day, I commented on what I thought was one of Senator Mason's better speeches in this place. It showed a sensitivity to this matter. I thought he understood what he was doing, but I did not realise the extent to which he really wanted to vote with the Government on the matter. It is unbelievable that he spoke strongly in those terms on only 4 April, that he came into this place and moved for the disallowance of this Ordinance and these regulations. Then tonight-I suppose it remains to be seen-he says that he will vote against his own disallowance motion. It is a lesson to all of us as to what notice we should take of him on any occasion in the future. No honourable senator has put forward any evidence in this debate, and no evidence was provided in any of the statements made by the Attorney-General, that there is any demand from the community for the changes to the regulations and ordinances that he has brought in. Senator Mason assured the Attorney- General that it was necessary to take note of the community view on matters such as this. Plenty of evidence has been presented to the Senate, in the form of petitions and in other ways, that the community does not want the legislation changed. I think we are entitled to ask the Attorney-General on what basis he is forcing this change upon the community, when clearly most members of the community do not hold the view that the law should be changed. It is not the view of many church leaders and bishops that it should be changed; it is certainly not the view of women's organisations and feminist organisations in this country. Who is the Attorney-General trying to please by introducing these changes? I think we are entitled to know the answer to that question. Who is Senator Mason trying to please by the turnaround he has displayed in the contributions he has made to the debate on this matter between 4 April 1984 and 29 May 1984? Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(11.41) —I joined the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances especially to take part in the inquiry into this one reference. Therefore acting as a member of that Committee was a new experience for me. I had not previously participated in the activities of the Committee. Consequently, I found it necessary to do a considerable amount of reading. I thank the Committee secretariat and John Uhr for the very capable way in which they provided me with information and assistance. It was not long before I became aware that the Committee was dealing with a very difficult matter. Several items in the Schedule needed clarification, and the gobbledegook, Evans- type wording they contained did not make the task any easier as we went on. When the Committee was probably two-thirds of the way through its task, it was given a whole lot more of this cottonwool type wording that confused the situation even further and probably said nothing. I think members of the Committee generally got confused at times by the wording . Those with a legal background were probably able to interpret the wording better than I and possible one or two other members of the Committee. The Committee operated with considerable good will and, as I said, it was quite a new experience for me. The interpretation of words required the Committee to do a lot of research by the use of dictionaries and law books and by discussion amongst ourselves. I would say that the decisions that we reached were reached through the best combined abilities of the members and staff of the Committee. When I went through the report today I found that it clearly refers to restrictions being placed on six individual areas. Paragraph 6 of the report reads: There is one exception: the new law specifies 'pictorial depiction' of violence , so that publications which deal with violence in a non-pictorial form are now being treated differently, and this change involves a restriction of the pre- existing power. That is the first restriction. Paragraph 7 reads: The draft amendments are more restrictive than the new law . . . That is the second restriction. Paragraph 8 reads: Since the new law does not include the previous reference to encouraging the taking of hard drugs, it is more restrictive; however, the draft amendments would overcome this. That is the third restriction. Senator Harradine —Restrictive to the powers? Senator ARCHER —Restrictive to the powers. Senator Walters —That is what he did not understand. Senator ARCHER —I thank Senator Walters. That is exactly the point I am leading up to. Paragraph 10 of the report reads: If it is assumed that the term is equivalent to or covered by the old references to 'indecent or obscene' and 'unduly emphasise matters of sex . . . or are likely to encourage depravity', then the lack of these words in the new law is a restriction. That is the fourth restriction. The fifth one is to be found in paragraph 15, which reads: . . . videos not for public exhibition are no longer required to be registered . . . The sixth one is to be found in paragraph 16, which reads: Section 58 of the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance restricts the pre-existing law by removing two existing, if rarely used, avenues of legal redress under the common law . . . The Committee unanimously identified a restriction in those six areas-a restriction on the enactment, on the prevention. This poor, silly, little man who has been raving here tonight does not understand what this restriction means . I have never heard any thinking so completely convoluted as that which I have had the misfortune to hear from the honourable senator tonight. If the Australian Democrats had taken the trouble to read the report or even one of its number had taken a position on the Committee, we may not have gone through this absolute farce with which we have been presented tonight. At least we may have been spared the ludicrous Press release that was signed by Senator Mason. I am absolutely appalled that he was prepared to admit that he was the author of it. Regrettably, that Press release has necessitated Senator Durack producing a statement which goes as far as is reasonable towards demonstrating the futility of the Press statement and the imbecility of its author. I seek leave to have that Press release incorporated in Hansard. Senator Tate —I would like to see it. Senator ARCHER —It has been shown to the Minister. Leave granted. The Press release read as follows- PR84/96 Canberra 29th May 1984 LIBERAL LOW ON PORNOGRAPHY The Australian Democrats Deputy Leader Senator Colin Mason today attacked the Liberal Party for its intention to vote on a customs regulation on X-rated videotapes, saying it represented a new low in political cynicism and dishonesty . ''I have been told the Liberals will vote for disallowance of a regulation controlling the entry into Australia of the filthiest and most violent pornography imaginable,'' Senator Mason said. The Democrats will vote with the Government to defeat disallowance of the regulation. Senator Mason said the Democrats had succeeded in their objective, which was to prevent the import into Australia of gratuitous, violent and cruel material with sexual aspects. ''The Government has acceded to the Democrats request to firm up the regulation , especially the final form of section (a) iii which bans any videotapes which: contain detailed and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of act of considerable violence or cruelty, or explicit and gratuitous depictions in pictorial form of sexual violence against non-consenting persons. ''The section effectively prevents material depicting rape and other violent sexual assults and is a major step forward for proper community values in Australia. I now call on the Government and the Customs and Classification authorities to ensure that this regulation is policed strictly. ''Meanwhile, I reiterate that the Liberal Party knows full well that destruction of this most valuable regulation, which has had input from all over Australia would open the floodgates to violent and cruel material because of the inadequacies of the law it replaces. ''An even worse aspect of the behaviour of some Liberals has been their misrepresentation of this matter to the churches and women's groups in Australia in a cynical and untrue publicity campaign. ''This is a highly complex and important matter and the attempts to trade dishonesty on it represents a thoroughly despicable and dishonest trick,'' Senator Mason said. For further information contact Senator Colin Mason (062) 72 7434 Senator ARCHER —That Press release shows itself to be plainly ridiculous, or that the whole subject has been totally misunderstood, or that the statement was wantonly stupid. I find it quite incredible that what I suppose one would call a Mason-Evans agreement covering these matters should produce a result such as this. The Democrats were of enormous help to the committee, particularly by not participating in it. As far as Senator Evans is concerned, anybody who buys the Democrats deserves what he gets. I thought the matter gained a better perspective when in the course of his enlightening speech Senator Mason said that the community needs a bit of nudity and perhaps a little pornography. I think that absolutely typifies Senator Mason 's attitude towards this whole matter. It probably typifies the view of the Democrats. I really have never seen one person go to so much trouble to make such a fool of himself in such a short time. I am completely at a loss to understand why Senator Mason made reference over and over again to the fact that various of the so-called offences had to be gratuitously depicted. I cannot see why an offence is so much different if it is gratuitously depicted than if it is depicted in any other form. I am not quite sure whether Senator Mason's argument was that it makes it so much better or so much worse, but so long as it was gratuitously depicted, that seemed to make the difference. Perhaps it was just that Senator Mason liked to use a big word. Senator Mason referred also to the churches' misleading campaign but, as one would expect from a person who makes a charge, he left it at that point and did not say in what form he was making the accusation of misleading campaigns. I guess that, with any luck, we might have the benefit of his explaining this not only to honourable senators but also the church people in due course. I, too, was somewhat impressed by the speech on 4 May and in particular the sections quoted by Senator Reid. I am made more conscious of the ability of Senator Mason when I realise that he can make such a speech as he did tonight, on 29 May, when on 4 May he made a speech which I would have thought was made by a different person in a different chamber, even on a different subject. I was impressed also that Senator Gareth Evans went to the trouble of saying that we ought to take whatever steps are necessary to protect children. However, it is clear from an examination of the wording, and the actual practice, that absolutely no effort at all is being made to try to protect children. I wonder how it is that Senator Gareth Evans says that in his position what he is really endeavouring to do is put together what people want, and that he does so by tapping community opinion. I am not quite sure who wants all this pornographic filth. I am not quite sure who has asked for it. The Attorney-General will have the opportunity to explain that to the Senate later. I was new on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, but I gathered that no member of that Committee was particularly rapt in pornography. I do not think they demanded it. The subject has been debated fairly fully in this chamber, but I have not seen many honourable senators clamouring for more porn. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Senator Mason has said he does. Senator ARCHER —I am sorry; Senator Mason wants more porn. The Parliament has been presented with many petitions containing thousands of signatures of people requesting that this Parliament desist from its endeavours to increase porn. I guess the Clerk could correct me on this, but to the best of my knowledge no petition presented here in the past month has clamoured for more porn. The records on that could be checked. Perhaps the Attorney-General has that information as well. Only today, petitions containing more than 5,000 signatures were presented. That is just one day. Before long, perhaps another 15,000 or 20, 000 persons will put their signatures to petitions expressing concern about this to the Parliament. If they exist, let us have the 15,000 or 20,000 signatories that require us to break down standards even more. I am grateful that the Attorney-General will now spend more time consulting. If he does so, rather than being insulting to persons he seeks information from, we might get somewhere. There must be somebody who has been successful in urging the Government to instigate changes in pornography laws and to water them down to the extent that they have been. From the sort of people I have been in touch with, I guess it is not the Country Women's Association or the Catholic Women's League or the parents and friends from any of the schools that I know. It may be some of the operators of the Sleazy Jack video places. It may be even some of the Australian Labor Party branches for all I know. I am not sure. But we have not had this information, and I really need to know more about it. I turn to the matter of the depiction of people consenting. I believe all they are consenting to is consenting to take the money for doing it. The notion of whether the people depicted are deemed to be consenting or deemed to be consenting is absolutely ridiculous; it is ludicrous in the extreme. I feel also that the provision 'likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person' is again an absolute nonsense, in Evans-talk. Another provision relates to depicting in pictorial form bestiality in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person. Senator Gareth Evans —What is the problem? Senator ARCHER —Perhaps the Attorney-General is able to demonstrate to us bestiality that is not likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person. Senator Gareth Evans —Have you ever heard of Leda and the Swan? Senator ARCHER —Yes, I have, as a matter of fact. Senator Gareth Evans —How is that for a start? Senator ARCHER —Do you think that is a good piece of artistic demonstration or portrayal? Do you think it is likely to be good for standards and morals? Senator Gareth Evans —It is a recurring theme in Western art and literature, you oaf. If you do not recognise that, you ought to be sitting down. Senator ARCHER —I thank the Attorney-General. This is what we call gratuitous advice, is it not? I appreciate the fact that he is so good at handing out gratuitous advice. I would not like to cause offence to a reasonable adult person by asking some of these questions. The Attorney-General referred also to the question of paternalism. I think it a matter of whether the Attorney-General is prepared to throw off what I believe is a responsibility. Those of us who come here in all sincerity, and not just to foster our own egos, believe we have some responsibility. I suggest to the Attorney-General that it would be worthwhile his having a look at for himself some time. In the meantime, for him to say it is paternalistic for him to uphold his duty in this place and to do the right thing by the public I find difficult to understand. He is going through the ridiculous phase of trying to change everything for the sake of change. He wants to destroy everything and leave this trail of destruction, to be remembered as the great destroyer. He is destroying everything he can without thinking about what he leaves for others to clean up. I will certainly be supporting the motions for disallowance. I do so on three grounds. Firstly, the literature we have received from the Attorney-General over and over again refers to the fact that this is model legislation. If it is model legislation, I would suggest it should be in the form of legislation and not regulation. The fact that other States might not wear it at any price is another matter. The Attorney-General claims it is model legislation. Secondly, I believe the changes will seriously weaken recourse to legal decisions, where they are necessary, and replace them with administrative decisions in the hands of the Attorney-General or anyone to whom he chooses to delegate. I do not think that is good enough. Where such a substantial change is being made it should be a matter for the Parliament to debate and deal with as ordinary legislation. Thirdly, there is a considerable change in the whole basis of what we have been talking about. The matter has been so totally watered down, and the whole question of pornography in all its forms has been made so much more open, that I believe the matter needs to be dealt with as any other reasonable legislation should. The changes that have been made have clearly been made to degrade the system. There is no question about that, because they were not necessary. The Attorney-General talked about non-enforcement of previous regulations. I would not expect that the Attorney-General would seriously suggest that because we change the regulations we are likely to change the views of law enforcement officers to them. There is nothing wrong with the regulations had they been better enforced. To change an odd word here and to put a few more words there and make them a bit longer really does not get anywhere towards overcoming the real difficulties that there have been. I believe that the case that was reported in the Canberra Times absolutely and completely exemplified the stage that the situation has reached. It is not going to improve unless we in this place take seriously the job we have been sent here to do. We are certainly not typical of the wide range of people in the community. If we go out and ask the people what they think instead of standng up here and trying to push it down their necks that we know what is better for them, we might even find out what they think. In the meantime I certainly support disallowance. Wednesday, 30 May 1984 Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(12.02 a.m.) —The hour is late. I would like to support Senator Harradine and those Liberal and National Party of Australia senators who have spoken against the proposal before the Chair at present. The following statement is made in paragraph 2 of the introduction of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances: That the Committee examine whether the aforementioned Regulations and Ordinance , individually or severally: (a) restrict the Commonwealth's existing powers to prevent the importation of publications, including videotapes- (i) promoting or encouraging violence, (ii) promoting or encouraging the use of hard drugs, and (iii) depicting hard core pornography, sexual violence or other gross obscenities; (b) restrict the Commonwealth's existing power to require videos not imported for public exhibition to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release by Customs; . . . The answer to that is quite clearly yes, the ordinances do restrict the powers of the Commonwealth to do those things. There has been a lot of Evans talk to try to obfuscate the issue. The arguments of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) have been more than adequately, lucidly and persuasively answered by people on this side of the chamber. I rose to speak only because of the desperate lies and misrepresentation that are included in a Press release that has come out under the name of Senator Colin Mason. Unfortunately, I was in the chamber when the original modification of the ordinance was introduced a month or so ago. We on this side of the chamber do not expect anything from the Australian Labor Party other than the destruction of this society. We have seen it with the flag and we have seen it with the national anthem and all the other promulgation of dogma from the Socialist Internationale that has spewed forth from the Hawke socialist Government. But one would have expected that the Australian Democrats might have known a little bit better. What did we find when the original change to the ordinance came through a month or so ago? We had the Democrats lining up to support the unrestricted importation of hard core pornography and the incitement of the use of hard drugs. Well, given the Democrats' well known position on the use of soft drugs and the rest of it it is not surprising that they escalate to hard core drugs. The point is that the Press release put out by Senator Colin Mason is a gross misrepresentation of the Liberal Party and, by implication, the National Party point of view. Those of us in opposition do not support the uncontrolled entry of hard core pornography. We do not support the consequences of that decision in any way at all. I want to put it on record that the Press release that has been put out contains blatant lies and I repudiate it entirely. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.04 a.m.) —I move: That the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. I merely wish to say that this motion has been moved rather than withdrawn because I think this is the best way to follow through the situation which is before us. A decision must, of course, be made on this matter tonight, otherwise the regulations will be disallowed. In that spirit I have moved the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question is: 'That the motion be agreed to'. Senator Durack —I take a point of order. I thought we were debating as the major motion Order of the Day No. 1 and that the other matters were being dealt with cognately. We really do not want to have divisions on all these matters. I want the Senate to be quite clear on where the battle lines are drawn. I want to make sure that we divide on one of the issues. I understood that we have been debating for two days Order of the Day No. 1-the motion to disallow the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation (Amendment)-and that the other notices of motion were simply to be moved formally. What are we doing? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —So that the Senate is clear at this late hour, we have disposed of the motion to take note of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. We will now go through the business of the Senate and deal with the notices of motion in order. Notice of Motion No. 1 has just been moved by Senator Mason. I have to take the notices of motion in order. The Senate may divide or not divide as it chooses on the notices of motion. Senator Durack —Have not we been debating for two days Order of the Day No. 1? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, you have been debating the report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The others have been taken cognately by leave of the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Mason's) be agreed to. The senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland,DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J. Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Critchton-Browne, N. A. Foreman, D. J. Lewis, A. W. R. Ray, RobertMartin, K. J. Robertson, E. A. Messner, A. J. Button, J. N. Watson, J. O. W. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.13 a.m.) —I move: That the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 59 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Question resolved in the negative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-In the light of the result of the earlier division and as these issues are all the same, the Opposition does not propose to call divisions on each of these matters. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.15 a.m.) —I move: That Regulation 3 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901 , be disallowed. I do not intend to speak at length to this motion. Because of the actions of Senator Mason, this matter has been reduced to an absolute farce. He moved for the disallowance of a motion and then immediately said that he would not support it. I was going to move for the disallowance in the first place. I remember talking to him and he said that he would move for the disallowance, thus taking away from the people who have given great consideration to this matter the power to control events in relation to the disallowance of the regulations. I regard this action by Senator Mason and the Australian Democrats as a charade. I believe that the people of Australia will see that it is a charade. When children are exposed to the type of material that will now be allowed to flood into this country, the people should understand that it has happened because of the combined vote of the Government and the Australian Democrats. Not one Government senator was allowed a conscience vote on this matter according to the statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The people of Australia will have regard to that. I believe that at some stage more mature consideration will need to be given to these matters. Question resolved in the negative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.16 a.m.) —I am in a difficult situation because the Classification of Publications Regulations deal with two different aspects of the position. They deal with specific aspects relating to the control of restricted areas. Now that the Australian Capital Territory ordinance has not been disallowed, I do not wish to proceed with that. I would have liked to proceed with disallowance of the other aspect but, of course, I cannot have my cake and eat it too. I seek leave to withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 4 standing in my name. Leave granted. Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Mason: That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator Harradine-I raise a point of order, Mr President. I understood that we had voted on this motion. I hope that a division will take place on this motion. I think this is a key matter and I seek to have a division on it. I understood that this was the matter that was put to a division earlier. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is a matter for the Senate when the question is put by the Chair. Question put: That the motion (Senator Mason's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S.Baume, Peter Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller)Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lajovic, M. E.Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J.Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E.Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Haines, J.Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M.Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N.Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Macklin, M. J.Cook, P. F. S. Maguire, G. R.Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J.Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G.Evans, Gareth Reynolds, M.Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F.Georges, G. Ryan, S. M.Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Foreman, D. J.Lewis, A. W. R. Ray, RobertMartin, K. J. Robertson, E. A.Messner, A. J. Button, J. N.Townley, M. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative Senate adjourned at 12.25 a.m. The following papers were presented: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 77. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1984-No. 4-Transport Industry Surveys 1983-84. Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders 1984-M21-1984 Performance . Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 81. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 79. Defence Act- Determinations-1984- No. 9-Transport Allowance. No. 15-Ceremonial Duties Allowance and others. No. 16-Outfit Allowance in Lieu of Issues of Uniforms. No. 17-Special Allowance for Medical Officers and Dental Officers and another. No. 18-Outfit Allowance. No. 19-Outfit (Replacing of Uniforms) Allowance. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 76, 78 Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984-Nos 73, 74, 75, 88, 89, 90, 91 Export Control Act-Meat Orders-1984-(Amendment No. 2). Financial Corporations Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 87 International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory rules 1984 No. 85. Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. National Health Act-Principles formulated under sub-sections 39A (6), 40AA (3C) and 40AA (7), dated 2 May 1984. Navigation Act-Marine Orders-1984- No. 3-Part 3 (Marine Qualifications-Issue and Procedure). No. 4-Part 4 (Marine Qualifications-Masters and Deck Officers). No. 5-Part 5 (Marine Qualifications-Engineer officers). No. 6-Part 28 (Operations Standards and Procedures). Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Principles formulated under sub-sections 3A (6) and 4 (3C), dated 2 May 1984 Postal Services Act-By-laws 1984-Postal (Amendment) No. 2. Public Service Act- Appointments- Australian War Memorial-P. W. Aitken Employment and Industrial Relations-L. S. Coyne Social Security-R. L. A. Baker Determinations-1984-Nos 9, 15. Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 80, 83, 86. Remunerations and Allowances Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 84. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Medical practitioners Registration Ordinance-Determination of Fees, dated 4 May 1984. National Memorials Ordinance-Determination naming three Divisions in the Australian Capital Territory, dated 2 May 1984. Notices of Variation of Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs - (82 Series), dated 15 May 1984 81(A Series), dated 21 May 1984. Ordinances 1984- No. 12-Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment). No. 13-Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment). No. 14-Veterinary Surgeons Registration (Amendment). No. 15-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 2). Regulations 1984- No. 8-(Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Ordinance). No. 9-(Medical Practitioners Registration Ordinance). No. 10-(Cemeteries Ordinance). States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, dated 14 May 1984. Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 44. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 36. Trade Commissioners Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 82 Governor-General's Proclamation-Commencement of Act: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was presented, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following parts of an Act to come into operation on the date specified: Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act ( No. 1) 1984-Parts II-IV-28 May 1984 (Gazette No. S 181, 22 May 1984). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 612) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 16 December 1983: How many Australian diplomatic passports are currently held by persons in each of the 21 categories listed in the answer to Question on Notice No. 288 (see Hansard, 4 October 1983, page 1070). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My Department does not maintain an index of the position held by each holder of a diplomatic passport. This information would be of very limited value and would not justify the staffing resources that would be involved in maintaining such an index. As the information cannot be extracted from the present computer records I would not be prepared to authorise the use of the extensive resources that would be required to extract it manually. However, the computer based passport issue and control system (PICS) is being redeveloped in preparation for transfer, at the end of 1985, to a computer controlled by my Department. During redevelopment consideration will be given to including a facility which would make it possible to extract this information. (Question No. 643) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 16 December 1983: (1) Is the area involved with the development of roads in the Cape Tribulation National Park in north Queensland one of 28 areas included on an indicative list of potential world heritage areas in Australia. (2) Is the production of such a list required of all State parks (including those in Australia) pursuant to Article II (1) of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. (3) Was that list developed by the Australian Heritage Commission and has the list not been made public because of some ramifications or problems relating to the Commonwealth's obligations and Commonwealth/State relations. (4) When will the Australian Government stand up to its obligations and publish the list. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) The World Heritage Committee has asked parties to the World Heritage Convention to indicate properties that might be nominated to the World Heritage List in the future. The Government has yet to respond to this request. The Committee requires that a property to be included in the World Heritage List must, in the opinion of the World Heritage Committee, be of 'outstanding universal value' and its disappearance or destruction must constitute 'a harmful impoverishment of all the nations of the world'. I am informed that the Australian Heritage Commission has considered a number of properties that might be nominated and that one of these includes the Cape Tribulation National Park. When the Government receives the advice of the Commission and of other authorities concerned it will consider the matter. Before making any decision on the nomination of any properties to the World Heritage Committee, the Government will consult fully with State or Territory governments concerned. Cape Tribulation National Park is included in the Register of the National Estate in recognition of its Australian significance. To meet the stringent conditions of 'outstanding universal value' for world heritage consideration the rainforest value of the Cape Tribulation area must be compared with those existing elsewhere in the world. As I indicated at the official opening of the Rainforest Conference in Cairns last February I remain to be convinced that the Cape Tribulation area warrants a world heritage nomination. (Question No. 660) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Social Security aware of hardship caused by the cessation of a supplementary allowance received by people on sickness benefits who are forced to spend short periods in hospital but are still required to pay rent on accommodation. (2) Will the Minister review this section of the Act to ensure that unnecessary hardship is avoided. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) I am aware of the hardship currently caused to some sickness beneficiaries without dependants who are ineligible to receive supplementary allowance (rent assistance) while hospitalised. (2) Yes. Clause 37 (b) of the recently introduced Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 would remove this anomalous provision. Passage of the legislation will ensure that no sickness beneficiary is faced with a housing problem because of admission to hospital. It will also ensure equity with hospitalised pensioners in similar circumstances who currently receive rental assistance. (Question No. 683) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) Does the Foreign Investment Review Board, or the Foreign Investment Division of Treasury, compile statistics on the total level (as opposed to annual flows) of foreign ownership and control of any or all sectors of the economy; if so, what are those figures for the last three years. (2) Does the Australian Bureau of Statistics compile statistics on the level of foreign ownership and control of any or all sectors of the economy; if so, what are those figures for the last three years. (3) Does the Treasurer have any reliable information as to the level of foreign ownership and control of any or all sectors of the economy if the answers to questions (1) and (2) are no; if not, does the Treasurer intend to arrange for the compilation of such statistics. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Statistics on the level of foreign ownership and control in sectors of the economy are not compiled on a continuing basis by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) or the Foreign Investment Division of the Treasury. The FIRB produced, on a one-off basis, some estimates (based on FIRB statistics) of the extent of foreign ownership and control in various sectors of the mining and mineral processing industries in 1982. These estimates were published in the 1982 FIRB report (pages 65-66) and indicated that: in 1979, foreign ownership of projects in production in the black coal industry (in terms of output) was 40.3 per cent, and foreign control 43.5 per cent; as at December 1978, foreign ownership of crude oil reserves was 50.5 per cent, of natural gas liquids reserves 46.7 per cent and of natural gas reserves 48.1 per cent; based on beneficial interest in reserves as at 1980, foreign ownership of prospective uranium projects was about 40 per cent; based on 1979 production, foreign ownership was 41 per cent for copper smelting and 45 per cent for copper refining; 42 per cent for silver refining; 24 per cent for nickel refining (nickel smelting was 100 per cent Australian owned); 40 per cent for lead smelting and refining and 18.5 per cent for zinc refining. The level of foreign ownership in the petroleum refining industry was 86 per cent; and as at January 1982, foreign ownership in the alumina industry was 67.3 per cent based on existing capacity and 68.1 per cent based on projected future capacity. The level of foreign ownership in the aluminium processing industry represented 62.7 per cent of existing capacity and 63.7 per cent of projected future capacity. These estimates must be interpreted carefully. In particular, they are not directly comparable with ABS foreign ownership and control statistics. For example, the FIRB estimates are based on data relating to production and beneficial interest in reserves or capacity whereas the ABS statistics measure foreign ownership and control on a number of different bases, the most frequently quoted being the value added basis. (2) and (3) Statistical information on the degree of foreign ownership and control of selected industries and private sector activities is available in publications issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Publications were produced for the following industries and economic activities before the discontinuation of these studies in 1978: (a) Finance companies 1973 and 1976 (b) Registered financial corporations 1976 (c) General insurance 1972-73 and 1975-76 (d) Life insurance 1973 and 1976 (e) Tourist accommodation 1973-74 (f) Advertising agencies 1974-75 (g) Research and development 1976-77 (h) Mineral exploration 1975-76 (i) Manufacturing 1962-63 to 1966-67, 1972-73 and 1975-76 (j) Mining 1963 to 1968, 1971-72 to 1974-75, 1976-77 Work on foreign participation studies by the Australian Bureau of Statistics resumed late in 1982 and foreign ownership and control statistics will be compiled progressively for a wide range of industries and activities, including agriculture, mining, manufacturing, construction, retail trade, transport and finance industries. In September 1983, the ABS released the first of its new series of publications on foreign ownership and control entitled 'Foreign Ownership and Control of the Mining Industry and Selected Mineral Processing Industries, Australia 1981-82' ( Catalogue No. 5317.0). Briefly, the results showed that: foreign ownership in the mining industry accounted for 51 per cent of the value added in 1981-82 which, after adjustment to the statistics to put them on a basis comparable to statistics published in earlier years, was about half of a percentage point less than the level in 1974-75 when the last such study was undertaken. Moreover, 30 per cent of value added in the mining industry was under foreign control while Australian control accounted for 42 per cent, compared with 40 per cent in 1974-75 and 42 per cent in 1972-73; foreign ownership of selected mineral processing industries accounted for 46 per cent of value added in 1981-82. After adjustments to the statistics to put them on a comparable basis, there was a decrease in Australian ownership of these industries of 7 per cent between 1972-73 and 1981-82. In 1981-82, foreign- controlled establishments accounted for 41 per cent of the value added of selected mineral processing industries, while joint foreign and Australian controlled enterprises together with naturalised or naturalising enterprises accounted for two per cent. Australian-controlled enterprises accounted for 57 per cent which, after adjustment to a comparable basis, was 1.2 percentage points higher than in 1972-73. (Question No. 699) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: Why is the cost of using Royal Australian Air Force Orion P3C and Royal Australian Navy S2G Tracker aircraft for coastal surveillance over four times more expensive than the Shrike and Nomad Searchmaster aircraft. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: RAAF Orion P3C and RAN S2G Tracker aircraft are designed and were purchased for a sophisticated defence role including anti-submarine, anti-shipping and maritime reconnaissance operations. They are maintained and operated in accordance with defence requirements at defence establishments which provide extensive maintenance and spares support and are manned by highly trained crews. The associated costs are reflected in the flying hour rates for these aircraft. The requirements of civil coastal surveillance operations are quite different. The majority of coastal surveillance flying consists of low level visual searches and can be accomplished satisfactorily by light twin-engined aircraft such as the Shrike Commander and Nomad Searchmaster. These aircraft are less sophisticated and less costly to purchase and operate. These differences were highlighted by Mr Beazley in his recent review of Australia's peacetime civil coastal surveillance and protection arrangements, particularly in his consideration of the possible use of RAN Tracker aircraft for those tasks. Mr Beazley's report was tabled in the House on 30 March 1984. The involvement of Defence Force aircraft in routine coastal surveillance operations is limited to offshore surveillance of the Australian Fishing Zone by RAAF P3 Orions, a role to which the capabilities of these aircraft are more suited. (Question No. 707) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: What is the total amount Australia will spend in 1983-84 on disarmament efforts . Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: It is not possible to be precise about how much Australia will spend in 1983-84 on disarmament efforts since disarmament is but one of many functions of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of other organs of the government. Many government departments work on a range of matters relevant to disarmament and arms control. It is not possible to identify what percentage of costs of maintaining the foreign service or what fraction of the Public Service's overall expenditure could be attributed to disarmament functions. Similarly it would be difficult to attribute a certain percentage of Australia' s annual contribution to the budget of the United Nations to disarmament. Readily identifiable costs are expected to be as follows: Salaries and allowances of staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra, Geneva and New York, who are exclusively concerned with disarmament $ 613,568 Associated costs borne by the Overseas Property Office (rentals et cetera) $179 ,972 Travel to disarmament conferences, contributions to the running cost of conferences, contributions to peace and disarmament organisations $179,536 In all, a total of $973,077 is expected to be spent in 1983-84 on readily identifiable disarmament activities but as noted above this does not represent more than a fraction of Australia's spending on disarmament for the current financial year. (Question No. 710) Senator Coleman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Are Australian ships or aircraft capable of launching nuclear weapons. (2) Do the FA18 fighter bombers on order have that capability; if not, are they easily convertible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) No weapon or weapons delivery system in the possession of the Australian Defence force is equipped with nuclear ordnance. The standard design of many modern weapons and weapons delivery systems is such that they have been or can be modified to have a nuclear capability. This applies to various items in the Australian inventory including the FA18 aircraft on order for the Royal Australian Air Force. On 2 April 1984 the Prime Minister stressed Australia's complete and unequivocal commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its permanent and binding obligation on Australia not to acquire nuclear weapons. (Question No. 718) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Is it true that a recent alteration to unemployment benefit forms requires unemployed people to list the names of employers with whom they have applied for work in the two weeks between lodging each form. (2) What is the reason for the alteration since the previous form required unemployed people to explain generally their attempts to find work. (3) How does the Government justify introducing a requirement that unemployed people in receipt of unemployment benefits must list job applications every two weeks when the January 1984 figures show that there are jobs for only one in ten unemployed. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) It is true that the unemployment benefit form requires unemployed persons to list employers contacted during the fortnight covered by the form but it is not true that this is due to a recent alteration to forms. A question along these lines was introduced in the form in 1979. Any changes to the most recent print of the form have been made only to clarify the question and simplify its completion. For example, instructions on the front of the form indicating that questions relate to the period covered by the form are reiterated on the back of the form. (2) In 1979 the Social Security Act was amended to require an unemployed person to satisfy the delegate of the Director-General that, among other things, he or she has taken reasonable steps to obtain suitable paid work throughout the relevant period. This relevant period is the period, usually a fortnight, covered by the form. The purpose of the question was to enable gathering of information necessary to determine whether reasonable steps had been taken to get work in that period. (3) The present Government did not introduce the requirement but, having regard to the law, regards it as a reasonable way of administering this aspect of the ' work test'. In deciding whether a person has taken reasonable steps to obtain suitable paid work during the fortnight covered by the form, the number and type of job opportunities available to the person is kept in mind. In addition relevant factors such as the person's age, qualifications, work history, mobility and geographical location are taken into account. (Question No. 731) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: Is the duty on most non-leather footwear now at a level of 141 per cent; if so, does the Minister for Industry and Commerce regard this as acceptable or does he propose to take any, and if so, what action in relation to it. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Under the textiles, clothing and footwear assistance plan introduced in 1982 local footwear production is assisted against imports by duties and tariff quotas. A proportion of quota is allocated annually through a tender system using a 'Dutch auction' type approach. This means that successful tenderers pay a premium rate of customs duty equal to the tender bid which clears the quota pool. This is additional to the customs duty of 40 per cent which applies to base quota. For 1984 the tender bid which cleared the quota pool for non-leather footwear was 101 per cent. Therefore footwear imported in 1984 using non-leather footwear tender quota is subject to 141 per cent duty. However, this duty rate only applies to non-leather footwear with a customs value of $1 or more but less than $9.50 which represents about 20 per cent of quota for non-leather footwear. The remaining footwear in this category in 1984 is imported using base quota and is subject to 40 per cent duty. Non-leather footwear with a customs value less than $1 is not subject to quota. Tender premiums vary from year to year and are a reflection of the market value of quota to tenderers. It is expected that as more quota is made available for tender through the life of the assistance plan the premiums tenderers are willing to pay will decline. However, it should be borne in mind that tender premiums reflect the commercial judgement of tenderers and it is not government policy to influence that judgement. (Question No. 735) Senator Chaney asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) (a) What tonnage of black coal is required to be mined in order to fuel a 1000 megawatt coal-fired power station for a period of one year; and (b) what tonnage of uranium ore is required to be mined in order to fuel an equivalent capacity uranium powered power station for the same period. (2) What quantity of radon would be released in: (a) the mining and processing of the quantity of coal referred to in question 1 (a) above; and (b) the mining and processing of the quantity of uranium referred to in question 1 (b) above. (3) What quantity of radioactive matter would be released to the environment in : (a) the normal operation of a 1000 megawatt coal-fired power station over the period of one year; (b) the normal operation of a 1000 megawatt nuclear-fired power station over the same period. (4) What quantity of other trace elements, such as cobalt, thorium, arsenic, lead, chlorine, mercury and other toxic hazards, would be released into the environment in the normal operation of a 1000 megawatt coal-fired power station using Australian black coal over the period of one year. (5) What procedures are there to minimise or otherwise treat these radioactive and other wastes released from coal-fired power stations, either directly into the atmosphere or in cinder and fly ash, and how do these procedures vary from the treatment of radioactive wastes from nuclear power stations. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Assuming that the 1000 megawatt power station operates at full power for 70 per cent of the time: (a) A coal-fired station using a typical New South Wales black coal consumes approximately 2.5 million tonnes in a year, as mined. (b) A typical light water reactor (LWR) station requires the mining of about 90 ,000 tonnes of uranium ore. This assumes an ore assay of 0.2 per cent uranium- that is, typical of Australian uranium ore bodies and that the uranium fuel is enriched to 3 per cent uranium-235. (2)- (a) Coal contains trace quantities of uranium and thorium and their radioactive daughter products including radium and radon. No data are available for the release of radon during mining and processing of coal. However the radium content of New South Wales coals range from 15-50 milli becquerels per gram- about 1/1000 of the amount in uranium ore-and levels of radon-a decay product of radium-would be extremely low. (b) Typical radon release data for 90,000 tonnes of ore are as follows: Mine-14,000GBq* Mill-620 GBq Tailings-7,000 GBq for each year thereafter. * Footnote: The Becquerel (Bq) is the unit of measurement of radioactivity and is equal to 1 disintegration per second. 1 GBq = 1000 million Becquerels = 0.027 Curies (former unit of measurement). The actual figures depend markedly on the design of the mine, the milling characteristics of the ore and, in particular, the method of tailings disposal practiced. For comparison, the average annual radon emission from land areas in Australia is approximately 1,200 GBq per square kilometre. (3)- (a) Based on New South Wales coals, it is estimated that a 1000 MWe power station consuming 2.5 million tonnes of coal in one year would discharge approximately 105 GBq of radon and other radionuclides to the atmosphere. In addition a further 550 GBq of radioactivity-principally lead-210, radium-226, uranium-238, thorium-228 and radium-228-would be retained in the solid residues. (b) Radioactivity escaping from fuel elements to the coolant during reactor operations is largely removed in the coolant clean-up plant, but some radioactive gases-predominantly isotopes of the noble gases argon, xenon and krypton-are discharged to the atmosphere. For a 1000 MWe light water reactor, the average figure for the annual release of these gases ranges from 290,000 GBq for a pressurised water reactor, the most common reactor type, to 3 million GBq for a boiling water reactor. (4) The trace element content of 2.5 million tonnes of a typical Australian black coal is tonnes Cobalt 5 2 micrograms per gram Thorium 15 6 micrograms per gram Arsenic 1.75 0.7 micrograms per gram Lead 27.5 11 micrograms per gram Mercury 0.125 0.05 micrograms per gram Chlorine 1300 520 micrograms per gram Most of the trace elements are retained in the solid wastes, that is, fly and furnace ash, produced in the power station. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has measured the total amounts of some trace elements being deposited in the environs of a power station but has not yet been able to determine how much of this is from power station emissions and how much from other sources, such as wind blown soil. (5) The main procedures used in coal fired power stations to minimise discharges to the atmosphere involves removal of fly ash from flue gases. The radioactive and trace element content of solid wastes produced in power stations using Australian black coal is within the range of naturally occurring soils, as might be expected from their similar elemental composition, and no special precautions need to be taken on this account. Fly ash and furnace ash may be used as a construction material or as landfill. Gaseous and liquid wastes arising from the operation of nuclear power plants are subject to extensive control systems to reduce the levels of radioactivity prior to discharge to the environment. Contaminated gases are filtered and sorted in pressurised tanks to allow short-lived radionuclides to decay, and radioactive noble gases are removed by absorption on cooled charcoal although a proportion is released to the atmosphere-see 3 (b) above; gases are dispersed through tall stacks to ensure radiation doses to individuals are well within the limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. It should also be noted that the noble gases are chemically inert and biologically inactive and thus do not concentrate in the food chain or in the body. Liquid wastes are filtered and evaporated or their radioactive content adsorbed onto ion-exchange resins. Solid wastes from these processes include filter sludges, evaporation concentrates and contaminated resins, and are categorised as either low or intermediate level wastes. These wastes are generally incorporated into inert material such as cement and bitumen prior to long term storage or disposal in special purpose waste repositories. Some of these wastes have also been disposed of at sea in the past but sea dumping operations are not currently being undertaken pending completion of reviews of scientific data on their environmental effects. (Question No. 755) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) On what date did Mr Owen Harries take up his appointment in Paris as Australian Permanent Delegate to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-UNESCO-and on what date did he leave it. (2) For how many days and for what purposes did he return to Australia between those dates. (3) Did he make three visits to the United States of America between those dates; if so: (a) what were the dates of his visits; (b) what UNESCO purposes did his visits serve; (c) what places did he visit; (d) were his visits made at public expense and approved by the Department of Foreign Affairs. (4) What countries did he visit in Europe, Asia and Africa: (a) at public expense; and/or (b) with the Department of Foreign Affairs approval; and (c) which of these visits related to the work of UNESCO. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Mr Harries took up his appointment in Paris on 3 February 1982. He departed Paris on 11 August 1983 and ceased duty on 9 September 1983. (2) Mr Harries returned to Australia at the direction of the then Prime Minister for consultations with the Government for twenty (20) days, from 23 April-11 May 1982. (3) Yes. (a) (i) 3-13 March 1982 (ii) 24-31 October 1982 (iii) 26 February-11 March 1983 Note: Mr Harries also travelled to the United States of America on 14-16 May 1982 as part of the Prime Minister's party; and transitted the United States of America on 22-23 July and 8-9 August 1982 when travelling to and from the World Cultural Policies Conference in Mexico City. (b) The visits were for the purpose of monitoring work done in the various research and policy institutes of North America, this duty being assigned to Mr Harries by the then Prime Minister. (c) 3-13 March 1982-Washington, New York and Boston. 24-31 October 1982- Washington and New York. 26 February-11 March 1983-Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco and Los Angeles. (d) Yes. (4) (a) and (b). Belgium, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom (2), the Federal Republic of Germany, Israel and Italy. All visits were approved in principle by the (then) Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 November 1981. Prior to each visit departmental approval was sought and obtained. (c) All visits were in connection with Mr Harries' duties monitoring work in research and policy institutions and in relation to his assignment to the Commonwealth Expert Study Group on Obstacles to North-South Negotiations. (Question No. 768) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 March 1984: (1) What Defence Department documents, if any, outlining details of the British atomic tests in Australia during the 1950s were made available to the investigation on the health of atomic test personnel; if no records were made available, why not. (2) Was the Government aware of the British document dated 20 May 1953 which stated Australian servicemen were deliberately exposed to radiation; if so, was this made available to the investigation into the health of atomic test personnel; if not, why; and if not, has the Government taken action to obtain a copy of the document and will the Government be making a formal complaint to the British Government for not making this information available to the Australian Government. (3) Will the Government undertake a more detailed and thorough investigation into the health of Australian personnel who were involved in these British atomic tests in light of this information, making available British and Australian defence documents. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Defence, together with other Commonwealth Departments and agencies co-operated in the compilation of information included in the two reports on the health of atomic test personnel-'Health of atomic test personnel' (Department of Health, December 1983) and 'British nuclear tests in Australia-a review of operations safety measures and of possible after effects' (Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council (AIRAC) No. 9, January 1983). All documents held by my Department relevant to each of these studies were made available. (2) The document, of which the government has obtained a copy, did not say that Australian servicemen were deliberately exposed to radiation. The document refers to the need to 'discover the detailed effects of various types of explosion on equipment, stores and men with and without various types of protection'. These studies were effected using dummies, or manikins, clothed in uniforms in various protected and unprotected positions. The impact of these explosions was determined by instruments. The involvement of Australian servicemen in the first two firings of United Kingdom Buffalo tests at Maralinga on 27 September 1956 and 4 October 1956 was as part of the Indoctrinee Force. This force was given the opportunity to prepare for the effects of atomic weapons in a wartime situation. Exposure to some radiation was necessarily coincidental to this exercise; but such radiation was monitored and controlled through health physics arrangements. The planning document to which the question refers has no direct relevance to the health studies which were based on available radiation dose records, survey returns and other relevant information. The document itself, dated 20 May 1953, makes no reference whatsoever to the deployment of the Indoctrinee Force. (3) As stated in my Press release of 21 March 1984, the question of Australian servicemen being deliberately exposed to radiation is not new and has been addressed, in particular, by Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council in its Report No. 9, which concluded that the measures taken to protect the public and the personnel involved in the atomic test programs were well planned and almost certainly effective. (Question No. 773) Senator Childs asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Can the Treasurer advise as to the establishment staffing level of the Foreign Investment Division of Treasury as at 30 March 1984. (2) Can the Treasurer advise as to the staff ceiling level of the Foreign Investment Division of Treasury. (3) Can the Treasurer advise as to the actual staffing level of the Foreign Investment Division of Treasury as at 30 March 1984. (4) Does the Foreign Investment Division have the necessary staff and other resources to enable it to conduct a thorough all-industry survey of all foreign ownership of the Australian economy. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Fifty-eight. (2) Staff ceilings, now called 'approved average staffing levels', are not applied on a divisional basis within Treasury. (3) Forty. (4) No, nor does it have the expertise to conduct an all-industry survey of all foreign ownership of the Australian economy. Surveys of foreign ownership and control of sectors of the Australian economy are conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). See Answer to Question No. 683. (Question No. 774) Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Is the priority of purchases in the case of sale of surplus Government land : (a) the prior owner; (b) State governments; and (c) local governments. (2) Is the land offered for sale by tender, in the event that none of 1 (a), (b ) or (c) desire/qualify to purchase the land. (3) Are there any exceptions to this policy; if so, on what grounds, and is Parliament advised of any exceptions. (4) Does the Auditor-General have responsibility to examine the method of sale used and details of any sale effected. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The normal order of priority in the sale of land surplus to the requirements of the Commonwealth is: (a) former owner (b) State government (c) local government. (2) In the event that none of these desire to purchase the land, it is normally offered for sale by public auction or public tender. (3) The Minister for Administrative Services has the authority to make exceptions to this policy and grant priority disposals. Standing exceptions have been agreed for disposal of: houses, which are offered or sale to tenants in possesion if no former owner entitlement exist; rifle ranges, which are offered to civilian rifle clubs in occupation if no former owner entitlement exists; non-official post offices which are offered to non-official postmasters if no former owner entitlement exists; and land locked properties where no access is available, ie. offered in normal priority order but then to adjoining owners rather than through the public auction or tendering systems. Other exceptions are made infrequently by the Minister on a case by case basis. Grounds in the past have related to equity or practicality. There are no requirements to advise Parliament in the case of an exception being made. (4) Methods by which surplus government land is disposed of by sale and detailed arrangements of such sales are matters subject to audit and inspection by the Auditor-General in discharging his responsibilities under the Audit Act. (Question No. 782) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1984: (1) Did Australia's Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation-UNESCO-on 10 January 1984, at a meeting of the Western European Group and others, criticise the American decision to withdraw from UNESCO. (2) Did Mr Whitlam, at that meeting, personally attack his predecessor, Professor Harries, describing him as 'not really a professor and not really an Australian'. (3) Does Mr Whitlam, as Australia's representative at UNESCO, reflect the views of the Government. (4) Why does the Government hold these views. (5) Were Mr Whitlam's remarks first cleared with the Department or the Minister for Foreign Affairs/Prime Minister. (6) If Mr Whitlam's views were personal expressions, does the Minister agree that the Ambassador went beyond the bounds of reasonable and proper diplomatic behaviour. (7) Was Mr Whitlam given a brief, by the Government, to try and mediate between UNESCO and the United States over the American decision to withdraw from the organisation. (8) Does the Government agree that Mr Whitlam has failed to implement the brief . (9) Will Mr Whitlam be recalled for 'consultations' with the Department of Foreign Affairs, if he is not able to carry out his instructions as ambassador. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Meetings of the member states of the various geographical groups in UNESCO, and in other United Nations bodies, are normally held in private and it is not customary for governments to state publicly what their representatives have said in such meetings. However, at the meeting in question Mr Whitlam expressed some disappointment at the United States' decision to withdraw from UNESCO. He did not dispute the decision, but looked towards elaboration of American concerns that might help other countries in addressing UNESCO's particular problems. (3) Yes. While Australia shares some of the United States' concerns about UNESCO's performance, it has made clear its preference for the United States to remain in the organisation. (4) The Government is concerned that a United States withdrawal would deprive UNESCO of a substantial intellectual and practical input into its programs and would mean the loss of a quarter of its budget funds. This would affect adversely the useful work that UNESCO continues to perform which benefits its member states. (5) The meeting was private and informal. There was nothing in Mr Whitlam's remarks which would have required prior clearance from the Minister or Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Prime Minister. (6) No. Mr Whitlam's comments conformed with normal diplomatic behaviour. (7) No. However, the Government is committed to working for improvements in UNESCO which might enable the United States to remain in the organisation. Mr Whitlam has played an active part in discussions and negotiations to this end in Paris. (8) No. (9) It is normal practice for ambassadors to return to Australia during a posting for leave and consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs and other interested departments. Mr Whitlam recently returned to Australia to address a meeting of the Australian National Commission for UNESCO. His return also enabled him to discuss with the Government a range of UNESCO issues. The Government sees no further need for him to return to Australia on consultations for the time being. It has every confidence in his work as Australia's permanent delegate to UNESCO. (Question No. 786) Senator Hearn asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) How many women hold senior positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs. (2) How many women take part in negotiations, particularly in regard to the area of disarmament. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The senior positions occupied by women in my Department and their numbers are as follows: Second Division-Assistant Secretary, 3, including one Head of Mission Third Division-Clerk Class 11 or equivalent, 6, including two Heads of Missions Senior Research Scientist, 1 Senior Lecturer, 1 Clerk Class 9 or equivalent, 32 (2) All career officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs serving overseas in the course of their essential day-to-day duties are involved in negotiations with foreign countries. With respect to the negotiation of bilateral and multilateral documents, nineteen women Foreign Affairs officers have participated in international negotiations since 1975, four in the field of disarmament. (Question No. 800) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 3 April 1984: (1) Which members of the Hawke Ministry have engaged in kangaroo shooting either for pleasure or commercially over the last three years, where and under what circumstances. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Kangaroos are protected by State and Territory legislation and generally cannot be taken without a permit. With one exception, the specific information requested by Senator Missen is not available to me. I have not been engaged in kangaroo shooting, either for pleasure or commercially, over the period of the last three years, or at any other time. The only thing I have ever aimed at a kangaroo, or any other living thing, is a Pentax. (Question No. 803) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) Is there concern among non-governmental organisations about the consultative process on the proposed crisis accommodation assistance; particularly, as there appears to be no mechanism for directly consulting organisations outside capital cities nor for consulting Aborigines. (2) Will the Minister for Social Security investigate the need to expand the consultative process, particularly in Queensland which has such a range of provincial cities where crisis accommodation assistance is very much in demand. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The review of crisis and youth accommodation recommended that crisis and supported accommodation programs should be brought together under a crisis accommodation assistance Act, cost-shared with the States and embodying a five-year Commonwealth/State agreement. It also recommended that if agreement could be reached, the new program should commence on 1 July 1984. The Commonwealth is anxious to hear the views of all organisations involved in the provision of crisis and youth accommodation, and specifically undertook not to finalise policies in the area until the review's recommendations had been further discussed with States and the non-government sector. There have been complaints from non-government organisations about the haste with which consultations to date have been arranged. The consultations were planned to involve at least three stages: STAGE 1 In November 1983 I sent a copy of a joint Ministerial statement on the review to all non-government organisations currently funded under existing Commonwealth programs, to all women's refuges funded by State and Territory Governments and to other co-ordinating or 'umbrella' organisations involved in the area of crisis and youth accommodation. In a covering letter I asked interested organisations for their response to the recommendations. Between November 1983 and January 1984 women's refuges were consulted regarding WESP 1983-84. These consultations were held in the capital cities of each State and Territory and also in Townsville and Alice Springs. During these consultations on WESP 1983-84, DSS officers took the opportunity to clarify any matters in relation to the review recommendations for 1984-85, particularly the proposals for WESP. STAGE 2 Although further consultations with NGOs were planned, it was not possible to commence arrangements until the Commonwealth knew whether the States were interested in going ahead with talks about the review proposals. Immediately following the nomination of all State and Territory Ministers responsible for negotiations on the review recommendations, a national officers' meeting was held in Canberra on 8-9 February 1984. At this meeting State government officers responded with initial positions on the proposals, and asked that further discussions take place only after the meeting of housing Ministers on 23 February 1984. Following this, consultations were arranged in all States, and Commonwealth officers spent three days in each State capital (two in Hobart and Darwin) talking with State government officers and non-government organisations. Approximately 600 people attended these consultations. In addition, consultations with appropriate national non-government organisations were arranged during March. These organisations include the Australian Council of Social Service, the National Youth Coalition for Housing, the Youth Affairs Council of Australia, the National Conference on Women's Services, the Australian Community Youth Support Scheme Program Association, and the National Advisory Council on Social Welfare. Discussions had to be completed by 9 March 1984 in order to provide input for the meeting of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers on 6 April 1984. This input was required by 16 March. I appreciate that organisations in many regional centres wanted Commonwealth officers to visit their centre, but in the recommended time-frame this proved to be logistically impossible. Organisations unable to attend these consultations were offered the opportunity to talk by telephone, with officers involved in the development of proposals, and the opportunity to comment in writing on the proposals was and still is open to those who have an interest in the recommendations. I would be very concerned if the needs of north Queensland had been disregarded when it comes to having the opportunity to contribute to important social policies. The objective of Stage 2 of the consultations was always to obtain a general idea of the non-government sector's response to the broad proposals. The consultations were not, by any means, considered to be final and plans for Stage 3 discussions on more detailed matters relating to the proposals were in train prior to the Council of Social Welfare Ministers' meeting in Perth on 6 April 1984. North Queensland was included in the itinerary. In the interim an officer of my Department attended meetings arranged in Townsville by organisations in north and north-west Queensland. STAGE 3 The intention, if the Council of Social Welfare Ministers had endorsed further development of the review proposals, was to organise, in May, further discussions with the States and NGO representatives about details of the proposed program. In the event, the Council asked that the Commonwealth should prepare a somewhat different proposal to put to State governments and that the Council should consider that proposal at a further meeting of Social Welfare Ministers by 30 June 1984. Obviously plans for consultation have had to be modified in the light of this development and it is probable that the Commonwealth and States will not be in a position to hold further discussions on any proposals until July or August. It is our definite intention to continue the consultative process. With regard to attendance by Aboriginal organisations at the consultations, an examination of records of the March consultations revealed that attendance by Aboriginal organisations was low. (Although a separate meeting with Aboriginals was held in Perth). The reasons for low attendance are not known. My Department has taken the following action: At its request the National Aboriginal Conference has circulated the joint ministerial statement to its State branches. The proposals are being discussed and a response is expected. National organisations have been asked to include in their submissions consideration of particular problems of Aboriginals. Efforts are currently being made to contact Aboriginal organisations with a view to arranging additional meetings with them, Commonwealth and State officers . In addition, plans are underway for approximately 40 Aboriginal women workers with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to inform Aboriginal communities throughout Australia of the proposed program, and to seek responses from those communities. (Question No. 806) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1984: What are the current priorities with regard to the funding of vacation care programs; particularly the State and Federal responsibilities in this regard with special reference to the Queensland Government's commitment? Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Vacation care is an important element of the children's services program. The Commonwealth provides grants to the States and Territories and each State and Territory determines priorities and which projects are funded in consultation with my department. In general, priority should be accorded to services which cater for children in high need areas or children with special needs, such as Aboriginal, disabled or ethnic groups. In total, $2.331m has been made available to the States this financial year, an increase of $637,250 over the allocation last year. State governments vary in their contribution to the vacation care program. Some States contribute nothing, as in the case of Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. On the other hand, New South Wales almost matches the Commonwealth level of grant. The other States make small contributions. (Question No. 808) Senator Peter Baume asked the Minister for Social Security , upon notice, on 4 April 1984: (1) Is the policy in relation to the funding of residential accommodation for intellectually handicapped adults, which precludes the building of residential accommodation at or close to activity training centres or sheltered workshops, a relative or an absolute prohibition. (2) Is funding always withheld for building of residential facilities for handicapped people where the only available ground for building residential accommodation is located next to their place of work. (3) Does the Minister for Social Security accept that there are circumstances where the only available land for building residential accommodation is situated next to sheltered workshops or activity training centres, and that there may be no alternative site available for the housing of some handicapped people. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Government's funding guidelines oppose the clustering of services for handicapped people. However, this policy, although firm cannot be called an absolute prohibition. The guidelines retain the flexibility to respond to individual needs of handicapped people by providing services most appropriate to those needs. (2) Location of two or more services for disabled people on the same site or within the same vicinity, will not attract government funding unless clustering of services clearly addresses the individual needs of disabled people better than the separation of services. (3) No. As a general rule, I believe that where residential accommodation is established for handicapped people, it should be located within a community residential setting. In this respect, the use of existing housing stock is usually most suitable for people with intellectual handicaps as little or no modification is required. This would be a far more preferable option than using land next to the place where these people work. (Question No. 825) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: (1) Have Australian naval forces on patrol in the Indian Ocean or waters in the Indo-China region ever come into contact with pirate attacks of Vietnamese refugee boats; if so, what response have Australian naval forces made to such attacks. (2) Are Australian naval forces acting on any instructions as to what response should be made if such pirate attacks are encountered; if so, what are those instructions. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There is no record of Australian naval forces having ever come into contact with pirate attacks of Vietnamese refugee boats. (2) Australian naval forces are given specific instructions concerning the suppression of piracy. Commanding officers are instructed that HMA ships are under a duty to suppress piracy and arrest pirates. The nationality of a pirate ship is irrelevant. The procedure to be followed is: (a) every means short of direct fire is to be used to stop the pirate attack and arrest the pirate ship; (b) if it can be done without endangering HMA ship, HMA ship may be interposed between the pirate and its victim; and (c) if all else fails, including the firing of a warning shot and a warning that direct fire will be commenced, direct fire on the pirate may only be used if approved by the Fleet Commander. Senator Gareth Evans —On 16 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3973) Senator Elstob asked Senator Button, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question without notice: My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is representing the Attorney-General, concerns the Human Rights Commission education course entitled 'Teaching Human Rights-Activities for Schools'. Can the Minister say when the course will be taught in schools on a national level? Can he also advise whether non-government schools are likely to include the course in their curriculum? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Human Rights Commission has informed me that its proposed education course, 'Teaching for Human Rights', has had successful trials in six schools, government and non-government, in Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The trials were supervised and evaluated by professional consultants and following their favourable reports the Commission hopes to be able to proceed with a curriculum development project with the goal of making a set of the materials available for any interested school in Australia. The trial course, which is one of the first of its kind anywhere in the world, has been revised and is now being published. the published material will become available shortly and the Commission will be looking at on-going currriculum development activities to refine the course even further in the future. It is intended that this material will be commercially available for schools and it is hoped that all schools in Australia, both government and non- government, will begin using it in their school programs. The Human Rights Commission will be working together with the Curriculum Development Centre to liaise with State education departments and authorities, with non-government education groups, with union associations and specialist groups to co-ordinate the curriculum development process. An initiative of this sort will hopefully help inform not only teachers and students about human rights, but will also reach through schools into the community at large. Senator Button —On 29 February 1984 (Hansard, page 136) Senator Jack Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the following question without notice concerning owner-drivers: What steps is the government taking to preserve the livelihoods and lives of owner-drivers who currently have no protection under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and are at the mercy of transport contractors, big business and organised labour? Is the Government willing to follow the New South Wales Government initiative and legislate under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable owner-drivers to form themselves into an association with rights under that Act in order to protect their common interests, their solvency and their very lives, which are all at risk in the present transport sub-contracting jungle? The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question: The Government is conscious of the considerable difficulties which exist in relation to the position of owner-drivers in the transport industry. However this is part of a wider question concerning the position of non-employees in industries generally. As the honourable senator is no doubt aware, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 makes limited provision for the membership by non-employees of organizations of employees registered under that Act. Basically this is done to overcome the type of problems which were illustrated in the Moore v. Doyle case by providing that the eligibility of non-employees for membership of federally registered unions corresponds with their eligibility for membership of state registered unions. In addition, the Act prohibits discrimination against independent contractors based on their non-membership of a federally registered organization. A number of unions, especially in the building and transport industry, have made representations to both this Government and its predecessor about the situation of non-employees in their industries. In addition the Australian Council of Trade Unions has made representations on the matter. The Government is currently examining this question, not in respect of any particular industry but across the board. It is expected that there will be detailed consultations with the ACTU and other interested parties including representatives of employers and independent contractors and the States. There are of course complex issues involved in determining the best way of dealing with the problems that exist in this area. The Government is giving the matter the closest attention to see if more satisfactory arrangements can be provided for at the federal level. Senator Button —On 2 March 1984 (Hansard, page 328) Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, a question concerning a report in the Australian Financial Review headed ' Australia has third worst work safety record says NSC'. It reported that according to recent assessments by the National Safety Council in New South Wales alone, 300 people die each year through industrial accidents and diseases and each year there are 145,000 accidents from which workers are incapacitated for more than three days. In my reply, I undertook to refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for any further comment he might wish to make. The Minister has provided the following additional information: The nation as a whole incurs enormous costs from occupational injuries and diseases. Employees suffer the hardship of pain, disabilities and loss of income . Employers bear losses through payments of higher workers compensation premiums and lost productivity. Australia's occupational health and safety record has been described as deplorable and is poor compared with other Western countries. The often quoted Australia wide figure of 300 Australian workers killed each year is an assessment of national work related deaths. Unlike the figures quoted for New South Wales it excludes death by disease and on journeys to and from work. Similar comments apply to work related injuries. The fact is that there are no reliable national statistics-this itself highlights the neglect in this important area. The situation in Australia is that the major responsibility for occupational health and safety lies with the State Governments. Commonwealth jurisdiction is limited to its own employees and to the Australian Capital Territory and external territories. The Government, however, is now addressing this situation and is taking several new initiatives. In my statement to the House of Representatives on 10 November 1983 (Hansard, pages 2587-2593), I enunciated the Commonwealth Government's policy on occupational health and safety. The policy calls for a concerted and co-ordinated effort to address the five major issues in occupational health and safety-legislation, research, information collection and dissemination, training and human resource development and administration. At that time I also announced the establishment of an Interim National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which was requested to report to the Government within six months. The report of the Interim Commission has now been received. It will be tabled in the Parliament and its recommendations considered by the Government as a matter of urgency. Senator Walsh —On 3 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1092) Senator Guilfoyle asked me, as the Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows a question asked earlier today by Senator Richardson about the prescribed payments tax system. I understand that the Australian Taxation Office experienced some difficulties in regard to the collection and administration of tax. I wonder whether the advice from the Treasurer to the Minister indicated whether the system was operating smoothly. If not, will the Minister obtain that advice for me and provide it later? The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government introduced the prescribed payments system to deal with a significant tax evasion problem involving the non-reporting of income in certain industries. As indicated by Senator Walsh on 3 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1086) it has been extremely successful in that regard. As is often the case with new tax procedures, there were some difficulties encountered in the early days of the system's implementation by both taxpayers and the Australian Taxation Office. These difficulties were overcome by the co- operation and goodwill of all parties concerned. While the Government has been pleased with the early results of the system, it has always appreciated that some adjustments could be required in the light of experience. For this reason the Government acted swiftly to place on the statute books the changes to the system recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations late last year. Since then, the Government has continued to monitor the system's operation and the Acting Treasurer recently announced a further change in the law which, when enacted, will reduce the paperwork burdens associated with the system in connection with the preparation and lodgment of income tax returns. A comprehensive review of the first six months operation of the system is currently proceeding in the Australian Taxation Office. The Government will, of course, consider other aspects of the system's operation following completion of that review. Senator Gareth Evans —On 4 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1196) Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: Firstly, what information has the Government received from its various diplomatic missions in respect to the arrest two months ago of 30 alleged supporters of the Melanesian underground who included the Curator of Cendrawasih University's Anthropology Museum, Mr Arnold Ap? Secondly, will the Australian Government use its good offices with the Indonesian Government to make inquiries about the safety of Mr Ap and his co-detainees and to make every possible effort to ensure that they all receive proper trials or are released without delay? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Information available to the Government is that Mr Ap and about 20 other persons were arrested in Jayapura late in November 1983 for alleged involvement with the Free West Papua Movement (OPM). Since all the detainees are Indonesian citizens, the Australian Government has no consular standing in the matter. It is reported that the 20 are still in detention. Firm information on the whereabouts of Mr Ap is not available but we are continuing to pursue our enquiries. Enquiries were made about Mr Ap for example during the recent visit to Irian Jaya by our Ambassador in Jakarta. We are aware of Press reports that Mr Ap has been killed, but these reports have yet to be confirmed. Senator Walsh —On 4 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1196) Senator Sir John Carrick asked me a question without notice concerning the status of current radioactive waste management techniques and I undertook to provide a written answer: The disposal concept most widely accepted at present as suitable for the long term isolation of conditioned high level nuclear waste or spent fuel is emplacement in deep, stable geological formations in engineered repositories. As yet, no final permanent repository has been developed although research on identification of suitable sites, and construction of test facilities, is in progress in various countries. High level waste (HLW) from reprocessing of spent fuel is in liquid form which requires immobilisation before disposal and various such disposal forms have been proposed. These include borosilicate glass, high silica glass, various ceramics (for example, Synroc) and metal-matrix forms. Of these various HLW immobilisation forms proposed, only borosilicate glass ( vitrification) is currently in commercial production. At present, the only plant producing borosilicate glass is at Marcoule in France, although similar technology has been chosen for demonstration plants under construction in the United Kingdom and United States of America. It should be noted, however, that only gas-graphite reactor fuel has been vitrified at Marcoule; no wastes from reprocessed spent oxide nuclear fuel have as yet been vitrified on a commercial basis. Vitrification of reprocessed oxide fuels in France is expected to begin at La Hague in 1988. Accordingly, while at technical and government levels in countries producing energy from nuclear sources it is generally accepted that the required technology is available for management of HLW from reprocessed spent fuel, further research and development into alternative waste forms is proceeding, for their possible future application as 'second generation technologies'. Among these alternatives is the synroc process, presently being developed in Australia, which results in a waste form with a high degree of resistance to leaching by groundwater particularly at elevated temperatures, and may enable permanent disposal to take place without the need for long periods of storage and cooling. Disposal of spent fuel without reprocessing has received less attention than the concept of geological disposal of solidified HLW from reprocessing. However, Sweden is presently developing a technique for the direct disposal of spent fuel without reprocessing, which involves encapsulating spent fuel rods in copper prior to disposal in granitic geological repositories. The Swedish report 'Final Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel' (KBS-3, May 1983) describes how a spent fuel disposal system can be designed using present day knowledge. The report has been subject to both Swedish and international peer review, and to date most reviewers have endorsed the plan as set out in the report. Further, research currently under way at the Stripa Waste Management Facility in Sweden is directed towards producing techniques suitable for evaluating other granitic rock sites as storage/disposal sites for nuclear waste. The KBS-3 strategy envisages holding the spent fuel in intermediate storage in water-filled pools for 40 years before encapsulation and final disposal. The present policies of countries with nuclear power programs do not require final repositories to be available before the year 2000, and in the meantime research on identification of suitable sites and construction of demonstration facilities is in progress in various countries. In summary: While the vitrification form of high level nuclear waste immobilisation is in use for a limited form of reprocessed spent fuel, alternative immobilisation forms (including synroc) which offer some potential advantages as second generation technologies are in the research and development stages. Further, while there are necessarily elements of judgment involved, I am personally satisfied that the HLW disposal plan proposed by Sweden offers a satisfactory resolution of this problem. Nevertheless, as current policies do not require, and the vitrification technology does not allow, HLW to be buried permanently for several decades, promising alternative approaches do need to be researched and developed, both for technical reasons and to ensure that the methods adopted conform to the high standards required by government and by public opinion. (Question No. 873) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: Are fees for chiropractic services tax deductible; if not, will the Treasurer review this provision to rectify this anomaly. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: No specific concession is provided in the income tax law for fees in respect of chiropractic services. However, chiropractic services usually constitute therapeutic treatment and the cost of such treatment, when administered by direction of a legally qualified medical practitioner, comes within the term 'medical expenses' as defined for the purposes of the concessional rebate provided under the income tax law. For 1983-84 and later income years where the net medical expenses together with other rebatable amounts such as life insurance premiums, education expenses and rates exceed $2,000, the taxpayer is entitled to a rebate against tax assessed. The rebate allowable is 30 per cent of the amount by which total rebatable amounts exceed $2,000. (Question No. 875) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 3 May 1984: (1) Have officers of the Bureau of Meteorology assessed the effectiveness of the Bureau's cyclone warning system; if so, what were their findings. (2) How many complaints has the Minister for Science and Technology received regarding inadequacies in the receipt of warnings of tropical cyclone Kathy, issued for communities in the Gulf of Carpentaria region. (3) From whom has the Minister received these complaints. (4) What was the nature of each complaint. (5) What action does the Government intend taking to overcome these problems. (6) Has the Minister considered the urgent need to upgrade radar facilities in the Gulf region. (7) What decisions has the Minister taken in regard to upgrading radar and weather forecasting facilities in the Gulf region. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Bureau of Meteorology makes a comprehensive assessment of the tropical cyclone warning system after each cyclone season. It also makes assessments following each major cyclone event. The most recent of these was after tropical cyclone Kathy in March 1984. the findings were: (a) warnings to coastal communities under potential threat were received well in advance. Borroloola, the township most severely damaged by the cyclone, was warned more than 18 hours before the winds struck; (b) the positions, both current and forecast, were found useful and accurate by officers aboard prawn trawlers in their decision regarding safe anchorages; (c) Burketown was not under threat, but received copies of warnings. Some delays were experienced at Burketown in receiving the warning messages due to lack of telex facilities; (d) post analysis of forecast positions compared with the actual positions produced a mean error of 95.6 km which compares favourably with the Australian average of 180.46 km; (e) complaints of tropical cyclone warning centres being unmanned stemmed from attempts to contact officers out of hours on normal office hours telephone numbers instead of the correct out of hours operational numbers. Out of hours telephone numbers have subsequently been provided to all local authorities; (f) cyclone warnings described as out of date were as current as is possible. The position quoted in the warning may in fact be 2 to 3 hours old due to the three-hourly data update system together with the time necessary to collect, analyse, and transmit the new information; (g) a radar installation at Gove would have been very valuable in providing data for improved analyses in the gulf area. Nevertheless, tropical cyclone Kathy would have been outside the range of Gove radar as it approached the coast ; (h) close liaison between the Darwin and Brisbane offices was maintained throughout in accordance with standard procedures; and (i) better communication links with remote Gulf townships are needed to: provide telex facilities improve radio and remote area television reception ensure early and reliable receipt of warnings to allow precautionary measures to be taken against storm surges or flooding of the low-lying terrain in the Gulf region. (2) One written and one verbal complaint. I have also received three recent letters about general aspects of the tropical cyclone warning system in north Queensland. (3) From a senator and a member of Federal Parliament; from a member of the Queensland Parliament; and from a shire council in north Queensland. (4) The complaints dealing directly with tropical cyclone Kathy concerned the difficulty in obtaining warnings in Burketown during the cyclone alert. The other representations dealt with: frequency and wording of warning messages; location of a tropical cyclone warning centre in north Queensland; and a general review of the warning system. (5) The study of tropical cyclone Kathy indicated that the only real problem was in the communication links to remote Gulf communities. It is planned to explore the question of telex facilities in these areas as soon as possible. Visits to the Gulf region by the Bureau's regional directors for Queensland and the Northern Territory helped clarify the problems of remote communities and also the understanding by people in these communities of the Bureau's tropical cyclone warning system. A new format to allow for simpler, abbreviated warning messages in addition to the more complete messages will be decided at the 1984 review meeting in Brisbane in July. (6) Yes. Plans have been formulated over several years as part of the Bureau's ten year re-equipment proposal and three year forward program. (7) A new radar facility is planned for Gove in 1985 which will aid the tracking and positioning of a large percentage of Gulf cyclones. In the longer term, additional radar is planned for Weipa and an automatic weather station attached to a moored buoy in the Gulf of Carpentaria. (Question No. 878) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 May 1984: What is the cost of collecting the 20 per cent sales tax on baking powder, cream of tartar and bicarbonate of soda, and is this cost considered to be significant. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There are no statistics available on the cost of collecting sales tax on individual items. The net cost of collecting sales tax for the year ended 30 June 1983, as reported in the Commissioner of Taxation's 62nd Annual Report, was .728 per cent of the amount collected.