Thursday, 23 August 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: 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 Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 44 citizens) and Coates (from 136 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That: the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 206 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 70km from Mackay and over 300km 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 anomolies. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 85 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens shows that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 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 await 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 retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminating. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a 'first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The 'joint U.S. -Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the 'Joint Australian-U.S.' Electronic Communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Primmer (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law 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. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 268 citizens) and Gareth Evans (from 1,037 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 and Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supercede the A.C.T. 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 dissallow 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 association 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 40 citizens) and Reid (from 158 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: A. 1. Amendments to the Customs Regulations have removed legal barriers to the importation of hard core pornography into Australia; 2. The introduction of X classification in the ACT, by the Prohibited Publications Ordinance, has removed legal barriers to the sale of hard core pornography within the ACT; and 3. The distribution of pornography degrades women, injures children and undermines family life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should- B. 1. Disallow the Prohibited Publications Ordinance and the amendments to the Customs Regulations; and 2. Introduce legislation which adequately reflects community standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 351 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 Reid (from 58 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of us, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully shows that we do most vigourously protest and deplore the introduction and availability of 'X' rated pornography, including 'X' rated video cassettes in Australia. We also must strongly oppose all forms of 'R' rated pornography. In addition, we dispute that statement attributed to the Federal Attorney- General, Senator Gareth Evans, that the great majority of adult Australians do not object to hardcore, erotic pornography, and we reject his claim that it is the direct responsibility of parents to control their children's access to it. We, the electors, respectfully beseech you, our elected representatives, to protect our society, especially children, and beg that adequate laws be enacted and enforced to make illegal the importation, production, possession or distribution of both hard-core and soft-core pornography in any form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 1,552 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That as the assets test. 1. will cost the Australian taxpayer at least $30 million in the coming financial year, leaving less money available for pensioners, 2. is causing worry and aprehension amongst older people and their families, 3. will affect those people least able to alter their financial situation, and 4. is confusing many people about to retire after many years of paying taxes, that it be abandoned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 29 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 undersigned, respectfully request the governmental intervention for the immediate release of Archibishop Francis Xavier Nguyen Van Thuan, co- adjutor archbishop of Saigon. The Archbishop has already suffered confinement since 1975. We protest to the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam against this further detention and demand human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: Woorabinda Aboriginal Reserve (Population over 600), west of Rockhampton Queensland, is severely isolated because of 34 kms of unsealed road which can become impassable in wet weather, extremely high telephone installation charges (over $1,000 per phone) being asked by Telecom Australia, and poor radio and television reception. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian government will: a. provide funds to the Duaringa Shire Council to seal the 34 kms of the Duaringa-Bauhinia Downs road which is now unsealed, and which services Woorabinda; and b. call on Telecom Australia to provide telephone installations at a much more reasonable cost. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 65 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 legislation is to be introduced allowing the import and sale of X-rated video films and that such X-rated video films are harmful and degrading to certain members of Australian society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 311 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —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 Remuneration Allowances Act 1973. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade for inquiry and report: A re-examination of the closer economic relationship between Australia and New Zealand, with particular reference to: (a) the impact of sharp currency fluctuations; (b) the need for safeguard provisions; (c) the growth of trade between both countries since the commencement of Closer Economic Relationship (CER); (d) the impact on local industries, including tourism; (e) the change in the composition of the Australian labour market; (f) the progress made on the staged removal of tariffs, import licences and export incentives; (g) the progress made on the inclusion of sensitive industries such as dairy products, iron and steel, timber, fishing and vegetables, et cetera; (h) the scope for investment and the involvement of the financial sector; (i) the identification of regional problems resulting from the implementation of CER; and (j) the impact on third country trade. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the desperate plight of the sugar industry in Queensland; (b) condemns the Labor Government's broken promise of implementing an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry; (c) notes that the Queensland Government's sympathetic assistance given to the sugar industry is twice the amount given by the Federal Labor Government in the same period; and (d) condemns the Federal Government for its total disregard for the cane farmers, mill workers and small business people who depend on the sugar industry for jobs and livelihoods. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate deplores the decision of the Federal Government to withdraw funds for the planning and construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link about which, despite the findings of the Hill Inquiry, there is much evidence indicating that the project should proceed in the interests of national development and security. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate deplores the decision of the Federal Government to increase excise duties on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel, as this places greater financial hardship on the people of outback Australia who rely on aircraft as their major means of communication and transport and who are already paying higher costs for these services than people in metropolitan parts of the nation. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I table papers 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. The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund-Annual Report 1983- Pursuant to Sections 34 and 35 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. 2. Australian Canned Fruits Corporation-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to Section 48 of the Canned Fruits Marketing Act 1979. 3. Australian Apple and Pear Corporation-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to Section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1973. 4. Poultry Research Advisory Committee-Report for period 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1983. 5. Fisheries Agreement-Between the Australian Government and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild. 6. Australian Tobacco Board-Annual Report 1983-Pursuant to Section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965. 7. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statements on Expenditure for March and April 1984. 8. Determination required in relation to Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84-Statement. 9. Australia's Broad Spectrum Bilateral Science and Technology Agreements- Report By Astec-Pursuant to Section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978. 10. Remuneration Tribunal-1984 Review-Pursuant to Sections 6 & 7 of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. 11. Australian Postal Commission Service and Business Outlook-Report 1984-85. 12. Australian Telecommunications Commission Service and Business Outlook- Report 1984-85. 13. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report 1984 on Financing the Australian Capital Territory-Together with the Text of a Statement by the Minister for Territory and Local Government Relating to the report. 14. Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission-Annual Report 1983-Together with the text of a Statement by the Minister for E&YA Relating to the report. 15. ACT Schools Authority-Financial Statements 1981-82-Pursuant to Section 63M (1) and (3) of the Audit Act 1901-together with the text of a Statement by the Minister for E&YA relating to the report. 16. Australian Maritime College-Annual Report of Council 1983, Volume 1 and 2- Pursuant to Section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978-together with the text of a Statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the report. 17. Canberra College of Advanced Education-Report of Council 1983 (Part 2)- Financial Statements-Pursuant to Section 30 (3) of the CCAE Act 1967-together with the text of a Statement by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs relating to the document. 18. Departmental Explanatory Notes on Estimates of Proposed Expenditure 1984-85 as follows: Estimates of proposed expenditure, for year 1984-85, and, where indicated, Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1983-84. Explanatory Notes of departments and authorities- Aboriginal Affairs Administrative Services Attorney-General's Australian Development Assistance Bureau Australian Science and Technology Council Aviation Commonwealth Ombudsman C.S.I.R.O Communications Defence Defence Support* Economic Planning Advisory Council Education and Youth Affairs* Employment and Industrial Relations Finance* Foreign Affairs* Health Home Affairs and Environment* Housing and Construction (2 volumes)* Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Industry and Commerce Joint House Office of National Assessments Parliament House Construction Authority Parliamentary Library Primary Industry (2 volumes)* Prime Minister and Cabinet Public Service Board Resources and Energy Science and Technology Senate Social Security Special Minister of State Sport, Recreation and Tourism Territories and Local Government Trade Transport Treasury* Veterans' Affairs (* Together with Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1983-84. * Proposed expenditure on Capital Works Program contained in separate volume.) Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button) agreed to: (1) That the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 in relation to the parliamentary departments, the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1985 and the particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1985 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1984 be referred to Estimates committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the committees consider proposed expenditure and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates committee groupings agreed to by resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1983. (4) That the committees report to the Senate on or before Tuesday, 9 October 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 Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill into the Senate, for it will remove another piece of totally discriminatory legislation. The Aliens Act, which applies only to non-British subjects, succeeded the war- time National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations. The Act, when passed in 1947, was intended principally to provide information concerning the non-British population, including its distribution by industries and localities, and to provide a basis for imposing limitations, if considered desirable and necessary, on the entry or stay of non-British subjects of any specific nationality. As a result of amendments made to the Act from time to time, non-British subjects are required only to register, notify my Department if they marry, and obtain consent to change a surname. For many years the Department has not fully maintained the aliens register, and moreover, few people now comply with the notification requirements. Having regard to the high proportion of Australian citizens born overseas and the large number of non-citizens who have irrevocable permanent residence in Australia, I believe the Act is based on outmoded concepts. The Act has been left in place essentially to satisfy national security interests. Until recently , there was no suitable alternative means of providing informatiOn on all non- citizens in Australia, particularly at a time of national emergency. An alternative means of obtaining information is now available through the Government's visa and entry permit systems. Almost all foreign nationals are required to supply information before obtaining authority to travel to Australia and upon arrival are required to complete passenger cards before being granted entry. The gathering of this information is being computerised by my department so as to enable it more effectively to monitor and identify those who are entering and departing Australia. My department has been tasked with the responsibility of preparing guidelines for access to this computerised information, in consultation with other interested departments and authorities. The Government will closely and carefully consider these guidelines to ensure that personal information provided to my department by those seeking to enter and remain in Australia, is properly protected from unnecessary disclosure. The financial impact of this proposed legislation is minimal given that there are no staff engaged full time on maintenance of the Aliens Register. The additional cost of building the requirement to replace the Aliens Register, into systems that the Department is developing to meet needs associated with control over entry, is $380,000 for microfilm and associated data entry equipment. Some of this money was spent in 1983-84 and the balance will be spent in 1984-85. There will be on-going costs of $50,000 per annum for the operation of this equipment. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to a change in the membership of Estimates Committees D and E. Motion (by Senator Grimes for Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following Senators be discharged from further attendance on the Committees indicated- Estimates Committee D-Senator Coates Estimates Committee E-Senator Tate (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed members of the Committees indicated- Estimates Committee D-Senator Tate Estimates Committee E-Senator Coates [COGNATE BILL: CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (INTERCHANGE OF POWERS) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.12) —I did speak on this matter last night for just two or three minutes. I seem to remember that I was reflecting upon the corruption, moral decay and decadence of a man who was once properly described as a genuine reformer of the Constitution. If the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) were a Christian one might see him as a backslider who now has fallen from the angels into the hands of the devil and who seems to have sold his soul for political expediency and no longer has regard for the altruistic motives which at first originally drove him on to a-- Senator Gareth Evans —I raise a point of order. Most of it is fair comment, but I think the words 'corruption' and 'moral decay' are going a trifle too far on the part of the honourable senator. I ask him to withdraw that particular imputation directed at me. The PRESIDENT —I ask the honourable senator to withdraw those remarks. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, I withdraw them unequivocally. Perhaps I should not say that that is what has happened to the Attorney-General, it is just a perception of mine. If I might pursue the argument and the line I was-- Senator Gareth Evans —We are not even on the air. What is all this about at this hour of the morning? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I do not mind offending the Minister whether we are on the air or not on the air if it is fair reporting. The Australian Labor Party claims that this constitutional amendment is required to guarantee Australian voters fewer elections. The truth of the matter is that this constitutional amendment, if carried, highly unlikely as that might be, will guarantee more elections, not fewer elections. I find it very interesting at the very time that the Australian Labor Party is preaching for fewer elections and the Attorney-General is haranguing us about governments running their full term we have the Hawke Government conditioning the Australian people day by day, through insidious remarks in the media, to the notion that the Australian people require and need an early election. He is seeking to provide good and valid reasons why there must be an election by December of this year. The election is at least six months earlier than is presently required under the present Constitution which would still allow for elections of the House of Representatives and the Senate at the same time. In other words, if the Australian Labor Party and Senator Evans were true to their word and honest in their own hearts about that which they previously believed, I believe they would be seeking, by way of a token gesture, to show their sincerity and their integrity by having an election in May of next year. That would be a token gesture at least indicating their sincerity and their genuine belief in parliaments running their full term as far as possible. If this Government were serious about fixed-term parliaments and simultaneous elections for both Houses of Parliament it would announce now that there shall be an election in May of next year and that the date shall be fixed now. It would demonstrate its commitment to parliaments running their full term, at least as far as possible. I find it a quaint contradiction in terms that while this Government is posturing about governments running their full terms the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is desperately seeking, with the assistance of Mr Young, to have the redistribution and the electoral rolls finalised as quickly as possible so that he can have the election at the earliest date. Of course, it is an open secret within this Parliament that the moment the rolls are completed and the boundaries are confirmed the Prime Minister will be rushing out to Government House advising an early election. As I have said, the Government is not looking for the latest date possible in line with the logic of the Attorney- General, but for the earliest date possible. I remind the Senate that this Government on previous occasions has proposed constitutional amendments which sought to provide for governments having a fixed term with elections to be held on pre-determined dates. That would have the effect of ensuring not only that governments run their full term but also that the date of the election is known in advance. It is well known that I am totally opposed to fixed-term parliaments because the purpose behind them is not to have fixed terms with a known election date. The real insidious, pernicious intention behind the proposal was to gut the Senate of its power, to remove its capacity to block, defer or postpone Supply. But at least if that had been the case the Government of the day, in the present climate of integrity, would be saying 'As an indication of our integrity we will have an election in May and you will be told the date now', which is what it was suggesting in its fixed term parliament proposal. Of course, we all know what happened to that. We now find that the date of the election is shrouded in great mystery. The Government is purposely tantalising the public as to what it might be. At the same time we know that the Government is rushing headlong into the earliest election that it can possibly hold. I ask the Senate: What happened to that proposal for fixed-term parliaments? What happened to that constitutional amendment? We all know that the hard heads and the pragmatic politicians in the Australian Labor Party realised that that constitutional amendment would have prevented the Labor Party from having an early election. It would have left it to be visited by the sins of its economic mismanagement. If, in the event of another temporary aberration, the Australian Labor Party were to be re-elected we would all be visted by the sins of economic mismanagement by this Government. Even the constitutional amendment now before us, for simultaneous elections, has previously been introduced into this Senate. It was proposed that the amendment be put to the people not at the time of the next election but, as I recall, in February of this year and that it would take effect from that time. What was the fate of that proposal? It, like the fixed term parliament proposal, was shelved. One might ask why it was shelved, why it was not proceeded with. There was a very good practical, pragmatic reason, as I have said, for the hard heads in the Labor Party who are more concerned about political survival and staying in Parliament than about genuine constitutional reform. Carrying that constitutional amendment would have had the effect of synchronising the elections of the House of Representatives and the Senate so that both elections were held on the same day. The real import of that reform would have been that the terms of honorable senators would not have expired on 30 June 1985, but the Senate's term would have been extended to the next normal date of a House of Representatives election. That action would, of course, have removed from the Prime Minister an excuse to hold an early election and would have forced this Government to run its full term. I am sure that that prospect had no great appeal to the Government which knows that it has built two Budgets on very fragile and false premises. The last Budget clearly demonstrates that fact. The receipts side of the Budget depends upon continuing growth and economic expansion in the Australian economy. Anyone who cares to reflect upon the economic indicators in America, the world generally and Australia knows that towards the latter part of this year and the early part of next year there will be a significant decline in economic activity in America, Japan and Australia. If one looks at the economic indicators one might ask: Upon what premises are the optimism and enthusiasm in which the Government indulges itself based? Of course, those premises are very fragile. There has been a decline in employment and in the manufacturing, construction and rural sectors and in all the private sectors generally. The only growth in employment, of course, has been in the government sector. We hear fallacious stories about the Prime Minister delivering half his promise of ensuring that half a million people will be employed in the first half term of his first Government. The truth of the matter is that 137,000 of those people have been given employment by government job creation schemes which are in some cases part time but in all cases short term. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister wants to have an early election, to get the election out of the way before the economy begins to crumble, the economic indicators become apparent and his whole strategy falls around his ears . One must ask: Why does the Government propose this constitutional amendment now ? The reason is pretty clear. In the event that this Government is returned to office for another term, the constitutional amendment will provide the government of the day with an opportunity to hold an election any time the Prime Minister chooses. That action flies in the face of the Prime Minister's altruistic posturing about governments running their full term. If the proposal is carried, not only will the Prime Minister be able to call a House of Representatives election but the Senate will be dragged along so that there is a House of Representatives election and a Senate election at the same time. In the event that he has an early House of Representatives election, the Prime Minister will not be faced with a half Senate election at a later date. As we know, as the Constitution stands, if the Prime Minister calls an early election and the election for the House of Representatives falls out of step with the election for the Senate, the Prime Minister will be restrained to the extent that he knows that he will have to face a half Senate election in isolation from a House of Representatives election. Inevitably, such elections are held in a by- election atmosphere. Traditionally, those elections do not favour the government of the day. The recent exercise by the Senate of its constitutional power and the manner in which that power has been used are not inconsiderable factors for a Prime Minister to contemplate when planning House of Representatives elections. Contemporary Prime Ministers have had to look very carefully at the Senate's composition and the effect of the Senate when they have had an early House of Representatives election. So, of course, the Prime Minister now wants the right, unfettered and unrestricted, to have a House of Representatives election and a half Senate election at the same time, and not to have to worry about future elections. Now, that restraining factor and influence will be lifted in the event that this constitutional amendment is carried. This proposal, by its very intention and its timing, will mean not fewer elections but more elections. It simply means that the Prime Minister, with impunity in insulation from other restraining factors can have an election at any time he likes. He does not need this constitutional amendment to synchronise the two Houses. That is no secret. Blind Freddy knows that. If he synchronises the two Houses on this occasion, and in the event he stays in power-and he seems to be pretty well convinced that he will be there as long as he and God choose-- Senator Elstob —You are convinced as well. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am not convinced as well. Senator Elstob —Yes, you are. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am not. The honourable senator knows as well as I do that when his Prime Minister starts to stumble, when the economic indicators show that he is not the Messiah, the factions on his side will move in like piranhas, and they will cut him to shreds in five seconds. The honourable senator already has his alternative Prime Minister, Bill Hayden, sitting over there in the other place, waiting for him to stumble so that he can climb across or stroll across his body, put his foot on his face and resume the position of which he believes he was deprived as a result of cynical exercises by Hawke and his co-conspirators. The moment that any fragility shows in the economy, Hawke's ratings will go down very quickly. The knives will come out and he will not survive for very long. Senator Elstob —The business people think differently. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —You might be talking to Sir Peter Abeles-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will address his remarks through the Chair. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Through you, Mr President, the Australian Labor Party might believe that Sir Peter Abeles is the repository of all wisdom and all knowledge and is a reflection of every member of the private enterprise system in Australia. I have to say, with the greatest respect to Sir Peter Abeles, that he really does not epitomise, reflect or represent the great majority of private enterprise in Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —Who does? Denis Horgan? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Ask Denis Horgan? I could probably, through you, Mr President, ask John Horgan, who was a director of Metro Industries, who ran Metro Industries with his brother, who with his brother was alleged to be involved in those bottom of the harbour schemes, and who has now been appointed by Brian Burke, the Premier of Western Australia, to head the Western Australian Development Corporation. I rather wonder where the honourable senator's double standards are. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will come back to the terms of the Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, Mr President. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, the very nature and the very naming of this Bill is misleading. It is not a simultaneous elections amendment proposal. What it really does is simply provide that from now on the Senate will be compelled to have its election on the same day as that for the House of Representatives; not the House of Representatives having its election on the same day as the Senate, but, simply, the Senate will be sucked along to have its election on the same day as the House of Representatives. That means that from now on the Senate will have its election on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. When he capriciously, expediently and pragmatically decides that it is in his own best interests to have an election to maintain his position in the House of Representatives, the Senate will be forced to go to the polls at the same time. So even the wording of the proposal is quite improper. Theoretically, under this proposal a chamber set up for a fixed term of six years could find itself having an election every 12 months. What a prostitution that is of the intentions of the founding fathers and the purpose for which they set up the Senate as an independant body, divorced and removed from the machinations and convulsions that might take place in the House of Representatives, and indeed with a chamber separate, divorced from and above the activities and goings on in the chamber on the other side of this building. From now on there will be not fewer elections but more of them. It should be understood that this proposal-I find this as disturbing as any other feature of this proposal-will have dramatic effects on the powers and independence of the Senate. It will irreversibly reduce and weaken the powers of the Senate and its capacity to act in an independent way as a House of review or as a States' House. I remind the Senate of the wording of section 53 of the Constitution which, in part, reads: Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws. That refers to not more, not less, but equal power. Now one will find the Senate subject to elections because, as a result of events in the House of Representatives, the Senate will lose that status. It will become an appendage, a poor relation, a chamber that will meekly follow the House of Representatives and be subject to the whims and wishes of that House. The very survival of the Senate will from now on rest in the hands of the Prime Minister. By the very provisions that are proposed and intended the Senate will be inextricably tied to the House of Representatives and the fate of the House of Representatives will be visited upon this chamber. Senators will no longer have independence of mind or action. The Senate's functions as a States' House will, in my view, be thoroughly dissolved. The Senate will simply be an addition to the House of Representatives and in future will have to rely on the fortunes of the House of Representatives for its very existence. Matters and affairs in the House of Representatives will have a bearing on the Senate and will dictate the Senate's duration and composition. In the event of convulsions in the House of Representatives that result in the Prime Minister calling an early election-which, for no good reason, he might decide to hold-the House of review, the Senate, will be dragged along. I ask the Attorney-General to explain why a crisis in the House of Representatives, in which neither the Australian Democrats nor Senator Harradine have any representation, should cause them to have to go back to the polls to renew their mandate. Following events in the House of Representatives, over which neither Senator Harradine nor the Democrats will have any influence, they will find themselves dragged through a political imbroglio simply because the Labour Party proposes to link the fortunes of the House of Representatives with the Senate. I see no reason why activities, events and convulsions in the House of Representatives, or political expediency by the Prime Minister should reflect or be visited upon this chamber. Its stability, continuity, smooth functioning will be destroyed for no good reason and its powers will be dramatically diluted. In the event that the Senate seeks to exhibit its inherent characteristics by rejecting, amending or deferring legislation it considers to be obnoxious, badly drafted, ill-conceived and wants to contemplate or examine the legislation, the Prime Minister of the day can stand over the Senate with a big stick. He can say : 'If you do not knuckle down, if you do not agree with what I want, we will have an election and have you cast before the voters again'. Of course, the effect of that will be to bypass section 57 of the Constitution. That was a section subject to a great deal of debate, contemplation and consideration by the founding fathers who saw it as a vital part, indeed the linchpin, of the functioning of this chamber and its relationship with the House of Representatives. Therefore, as I say, this chamber will in many respects be diluted. Given that the Senate was provided with such distinct characteristics and powers, the problem which faced the delegates was how to overcome deadlocks. Therefore, section 57 was conceived. Of course, that is now to be bypassed. I remind the chamber that it is no accident of history and no oversight by the draftsmen that the founding fathers very carefully wrote in section 57 of the Constitution which states: The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years . . . I contrast that with section 28 of the Constitution which states: Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first meeting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor -General. The contrast between those two sections is clear, precise and obvious. One House was to have a fixed term and the other was to have a maximum term and, on occasions, a lesser term. The distinction is quite clear: The founding fathers deliberately set a fixed term of six years for senators, except within the limitations of section 57, and no lesser period. The Founding Fathers set a maximum period of three years, or a lesser period, for the House of Representatives. That was what was intended. If it was not intended that the Senate serve twice the term of the House of Representatives then, of course, the Constitution would have been written in a different way. The founding fathers of course intended the Senate to be a States House; a House of review and a House of second deliberation. In many ways they intended it should be an independent chamber with its own rights and responsibilities and own reasons for existing. It was intended to be unfettered and insulated from the machinations which take place in the House of Representatives. Quite properly it has been given a continuity not available to the House of Representatives. As I said, if there is a conflict between the two chambers, section 57 is intended to prevail. Regrettably my time is quickly running out. There were a number of other matters which I wished to touch upon. However, I say that it is for a very good reason that a term of six years by rotation was chosen. It was chosen to provide continuity, a reflection of contemporary community attitudes and standards. In the Constitution the Senate stands, or did in the past at least, removed from the actions of the Prime Minister. It is only action by the Senate, not by the Government and not by the Prime Minister, which makes the Senate accountable to the people. If the Senate chooses to use its powers capriciously, irresponsibly or delinquently it will find itself accountable to the Australian community. I conclude by saying simply that simultaneous elections are not required for synchronisation of elections. Simultaneous elections will bring about more elections, not fewer elections. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.39) —I wish to speak only briefly in this debate on the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and cognate Bill because the Australian Democrats' position has been put very clearly, concisely and accurately by Senator Macklin and Senator Mason. I think it needs to be recognised, and I now acknowledge, that the Australian Democrats are the principal reason for this constitutional referendum proposal. I say 'the principal reason' because this proposal is aimed at gutting the Senate. Its whole point is to ensure that the Senate loses the power which it has had, enjoyed and used very responsibly since Federation. I am very concerned that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has set out on a path to take this Senate like a bunch of lemmings over a precipice which will ensure that the Parliament of Australia becomes, to all intents and purposes, unicameral. The powers of the Senate will be destroyed because the Prime Minister will have the opportunity to exercise the same power over this House that he currently exercises over the House of Representatives. I am not talking about today's Prime Minister only but Prime Ministers of the past and the future. Those of the past have all demonstrated their willingness and their enthusiasm for applying a dictatorial approach to the decision-making processes of the House of Representatives. When the government had control of the Senate it was possible for that power to be exercised over the Senate as well. It was not always possible because there were occasions when the government did not have the control of the Senate. But since the arrival of the Australian Democrats who have gained the balance of power, the government of the day and the potential government, currently Her Majesty's Opposition, have recognised that the Senate has the potential to modify, to reject and to improve legislation coming from the House of Representatives as an independent House not controlled by either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. The result of that has been that for the first time since Federation Australia has a House of review which genuinely reviews legislation and which not only exercises its powers to improve legislation in the sense of taking out the bugs of the legislation but also looks at legislation in terms of what is going to be right, just and appropriate for the whole Australian population and not just for sectional interest groups who may have the ear of the government of the day. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you have already heard, the Australian Democrats will reluctantly be agreeing to this motion because of the deep concern that we have that the Australian people must be given the opportunity on every occasion to determine the shape and the content of the Australian Constitution. We do not believe that politicians should have the right to determine whether matters go into the Constitution. As has been demonstrated very ably by Senator Mason, the determination of the Constitution's content should not only be the result of matters initiated within this Parliament but also should be possible as a result of items initiated by the people of Australia outside this Parliament as a result of a citizen's initiative being presented to this Parliament with the appropriate number of signatures attached. We believe that it is not the place of politicians to deny people the right to vote on constitutional alterations. We will be voting for that right to be maintained and not to be thrown out by a group of politicians who have an interest in the rejection of this constitutional referendum, an interest which I share and with which I agree. Let us see what will be the effect of the passage of this constitutional amendment if the people of Australia, in their wisdom, do accept the proposal. It will increase the uncertainty of election dates. That must is absolutely certain because in addition to the current pressures on the Prime Minister to call an election ahead of its normal time, there will be the pressure of the Senate's recalcitrance annoying the Prime Minister of the day and the government of the day to the point that they want to teach the Senate a lesson. They will throw the Senate to the people for an election. That will happen once or twice and, presumably, the Senate will get the message that from then on it will have to behave itself; it will have to follow the dictates of the Prime Minister of the day or it will be thrown out to the people for another election. What was intended as a six-year term will become a five-year term, a four-year term or a three-year term. It could come back to a two-year term or even less for senators who were originally elected for a six-year term. Until now that possibility might not have occurred to the people who have been speaking on this Bill. But it is a very real possibility and believe me, Mr Acting Deputy President, it is the inherent threat of this constitutional amendment which has been put forward by the Government. One of the incredible things that we find is that the general support for simultaneous elections is coming from all sections of the political spectrum. There is support by the Liberal Party of Australia, when in government, for the Prime Minister to have the power to send the Senate to the people at any time. Support for the proposal changes when Liberal Party members are sitting in opposition. It becomes abhorrent to them when they perceive it likely that they will be sitting in opposition for not just this Parliament but for the succeeding parliament. They recognise that the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will be the first Prime Minister to be able to use the threat to the Senate. The threat is not just in terms of uncertainty of election dates; it flows on from that beyond the politicans of the day into the whole economic fabric of this country. We have seen what happens to the economy of the country when an election is threatened. If this Bill is passed and becomes law, and the Constitution is changed, there is potential for an election to be called every day of every year following each election. There will never be restraint on a Prime Minister. Currently at least this restraint is there because the only provision for the Prime Minister to throw out the Senate is to call a double dissolution and he has to have constitutional provisions to enable him to do that. Therefore this provision gives the Prime Minister of the day the potential to manipulate this Parliament. It also needs to be recognised that it gives him the potential to manipulate the whole electoral system because he will be in a position to call an election immediately after a half-Senate election, to throw out those honourable senators who were serving their second term and put them before the people shortly after the election of the Senate which was elected at the same time as the new Prime Minister was elected. I believe that that will in turn lead to a loss of confidence in parliamentary democracy in this country. It is as serious as that. Let us look at the people who will have the opportunity to exercise this power and see whether it is likely that it will be used responsibly. The Prime Minister, who I believe has dictated to the Attorney-General that this measure will go through at this time, on its own, is the very Prime Minister who announced this week that he will be calling an early election. It will probably be five months early with absolutely no justification for it being five months early. That early election originally intended-I believe it still intends-to give the Parliament an opportunity for temporary control of this Senate by the Australian Labor Party; a deliberate manipulation of the electoral system. In this election seven senators will be elected from each State, both short termers and longer termers. It may be, as a result of the electoral processes, that the Government will have the power of control of this Senate for a short term before 30 June next. That is still a possibility. It was certainly a strong possibility when this proposal was conceived and it was part of the reasoning behind the proposal. It is that kind of machiavellian reasoning and political electoral manipulation of the system which has caused the Prime Minister to bring on this early election. Do not tell me that suddenly, when the Constitution is changed, Prime Ministers from here on will be puritanical and that they will not have any political objectives when they call elections. I do not believe that and neither does anybody else in this chamber. The alternative to this Prime Minister, whose track record is already completely demolished in terms of letting parliaments run their full term, is somebody like Mr Fraser. I do not think history will ever reveal a Prime Minister with a record for calling early elections such as that enjoyed, if that is the word to use, by Prime Minister Fraser, as he was, and Leader of the Opposition Fraser as he was before that. He manipulated early elections even before he became Prime Minister. They are the sorts of leaders who will have absolute power in determining when elections are called if this proposition is accepted by this Parliament and, in turn, by the people of Australia. They are the sorts of people in whom the power to determine the fate of a parliament will rest. The Australian Democrats believe that this matter needs to be put honestly, openly and clearly to the people of Australia before this constitutional alteration is voted upon. For that reason I now move on behalf of the Australian Democrats the following amendment to the motion for the second reading: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate, noting that- (a) the Attorney-General stated in the Senate on 21 September 1983 that ''We ( the Government) believe, as a party, that there are real advantages and real merits in the fixed term proposal''; (b) the reason given by the Government for withdrawing the fixed term proposal was that ''opinion on this issue (fixed terms) as between the major parties is hopelessly divided at this point'', and ''given the history of referendums on constitutional matters in this country, it does make it extremely implausible that the proposal would attract the necessary majority support were it to go ahead in that particular environment''; and (c) the same set of circumstances exists in relation to this Bill, in that the Government supports the Bill and the Liberal and National parties are opposed to the Bill as it stands, urges the Government not to proceed to a referendum on this issue unless conducted concurrently with a proposal for fixed terms of Parliaments'. The honest proposition that the Australian Democrats want to have put before the people of Australia is the alternative of simultaneous elections, where the Prime Minister can pick his day, or fixed term parliaments. That is an honest proposition and I ask the Attorney-General to respond specifically to it and to give reasons for not putting it to the people in those honest terms and for not giving the people of Australia the opportunity to make this decision rather than he and his mates working out a proposition in a cosy corner which will transfer the power away from the people to the Prime Minister of the day. I conclude by putting one other suggestion to this Parliament. I believe that, along with the proposal for fixed term parliaments, there should be a proposal for a four-year term. Once more, if the Attorney-General had the courage of his convictions, as expressed outside the Parliament in many other fora, he would propose an alteration to the Constitution providing for a four-year fixed term. I go further than that and put the proposition that a four-year fixed term should be applied to both Houses of Parliament, both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Gareth Evans —That is a sensible proposition. Senator JACK EVANS —I very strongly believe that. It is very interesting to hear the interjection of the Attorney-General in support of that proposal. The Attorney-General is about to transfer to the House of Representatives and therein lies the reason for his support for the whole proposition. He wants the House of Representatives to have even greater control of the Senate than currently exists. He wants to take the power of this Senate chamber away from the Senate because he no longer has an interest in the Senate. He is willing now to be manipulated by the Prime Minister to put this sort of half-baked proposition before the Senate and, in turn, before the people of Australia. I ask the Attorney-General again: If he agrees, as he has just implied, with the proposal for a fixed four-year term, why is he not putting it to the people of Australia as a constitutional proposal? Why is he putting up this single proposition which does exactly the opposite to what he really believes in, or what he says he really believes in outside the Parliament, and gives instead the power to call an election at the drop of a hat, at the whim of a Prime Minister? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.57) —The Senate will know that I have spoken on previous occasions against proposals exactly the same as the proposed Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I intend to be very brief and simply repeat my previous statements that this Bill is a fraud. The title of this Bill is an attempt by this Government and previous governments to mislead the people of Australia into supporting something with which we all agree, that when there is an election for the House of Representatives, there ought also to be an election for the Senate. We know that that is a popular view. This Bill has been given that title as if that is the purpose of the Bill. I say it is a fraud because it is quite clear that that is not the purpose of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to enable a Prime Minister to call an election of both Houses of Parliament when the Prime Minister wants to have an election without regard to the fixed term of the Senate. That is the situation. Under the Constitution as it now stands the Senate in effect has a fixed term. It has always been a pain and cause for annoyance to Prime Ministers that they have had to wait until there is a gap to enable the Senate to be taken to an election before they can call an election of the House of Representatives or, alternatively, face a separate election for the House of Representatives and the Senate. Because of this annoyance Prime Minister after Prime Minister, from Mr Menzies through to Mr Fraser and the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), has tried to change the Constitution to enable him to be able to take out the Senate at the same time as he takes out the House of Representatives. To talk about simultaneous elections is an absolute fraud. The Bill is put that way simply to induce the people to support something which they would not support if the Bill were given a name which enabled them to understand what the Bill was all about. I am delighted to see that in due course in this chamber a procedure will be followed which, I hope, will result in a changed title to the Bill. I hope that proposal will get the support of the Australian Democrats, who seem at last to have understood the real purpose of this proposal. I have spoken against this proposal repeatedly. I do not see a great deal of sense in talking about other alternatives which this Government is not prepared to put before the people. This is clearly an election gimmick. The Prime Minister, with his current popularity rating and an opportunity to talk a lot of nonsense, rhetoric and garbage to the people-which he will do; it will be untrue but it will appear on the surface of it to be sensible-is hoping to be able to slip this through. Let there be no doubt that if this is carried by the people of Australia, the result will be that there will be many more elections in Australia than there have been in the past. There is no question about that. Senator Crichton-Browne —Absolutely. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague from Western Australia says, 'Absolutely'. There will be many more elections, because Prime Ministers will be able to take out both Houses of this Parliament whenever they wish. If the Prime Minister had had this proposal in the Constitution we would have already had an election and we would now be in the midst of the term of the second Hawke Government. Notwithstanding the massive majority that Mr Hawke has in the lower House at present, there is no doubt he already would have had a second election. If Mr Fraser had been Prime Minister and he had had this provision in the Constitution , he would have had more elections than he managed to have in his short term in office. Prime Ministers would see this as an enormous opportunity to have an election when it would be favourable to them to do so, and an opportunity then to win a majority not only in the lower House but also in the Senate. Senator Crichton-Browne —Senator Evans will make it possible. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Crichton-Browne says, this Attorney-General is endeavouring to make that possible, notwithstanding all the speeches he made throughout his career before coming Attorney-General, and in fact in the early stages of his career as Attorney-General, criticising Prime Ministers for having early elections and trying, in some way or other, to make it impossible for a Prime Minister to have an early election. If he wants to do this, why does he not come up with a proposal to hold elections on a particular day every three years, four years, or whatever he wishes; put that properly to the people so that they can understand what it is all about; and let the people then decide the issue? No, he is prepared to take away the fixed term of the Senate. This Attorney-General who throughout his career has praised fixed terms and has said how marvellous it would be if there were fixed terms for Parliaments-- Senator Crichton-Browne-He has written books on it. Senator LEWIS —He has written books on it. By this procedure he is trying to take away the fixed term of the Senate and enable the Senate to be taken to an election at will. I am certain that if the people of Australia grasp the significance of this measure they will reject it, not only in the outer States but right throughout the nation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.05) —The Opposition's position on this matter can only be described as one of sheer hypocrisy and bloodymindedness. What the Opposition is really saying by its latest turnaround on the issue of referendums in general and the simultaneous elections proposal in particular it seems is that it will only support a referendum proposal if it can initiate it. The facts in this respect speak amply for themselves. The Opposition parties opposed simultaneous elections when they were in Opposition in 1974, but when they were in Government in 1977 they put the proposition forward as their very own proposal. They vacillated-(Quorum formed) I am indebted to the Opposition for creating an audience for me to explain yet again the bloodymindedness and hyprocrisy of the Opposition's approach to this referendum question. I repeat that the Opposition parties opposed the simultaneous election proposal in 1974, put it forward when they were in Government in 1977, vacillated all through 1983, opposing it at the Adelaide Constitutional Convention but finally deciding to support it in Parliament at the end of last year, and now, once again, the wheel turns full circle and, back in Opposition, they oppose it again. One is reminded in this respect of the Opposition's performance at the Adelaide Constitutional Convention when Senator Durack ditched his own proposal for family law reform. His justification for the current turnaround is quite transparently opportunistic. We are told first that simultaneous elections should be combined with a four-year term, that interchange of powers is too unimportant to support, but he then seeks to transfer the opposition's cynicism to the Government. The whole thing just totally lacks credibility. In the course of the debate it was advanced by Senator Durack that the simultaneous elections proposal was acceptable when it was contained in the package of five proposals, including the four-year terms, but on its own it is now not acceptable. This, with respect, is just nonsensical . The four-year terms proposal, although it would undoubtedly reduce the number of elections, did not, of course, guarantee that the Prime Minister would not go to the polls early. The fact that that proposal is not included in the present package does not change matters at all. There is not the slightest validity in the argument that the former package of five proposals in some way provided some restraint on the Prime Minister's right to call an early election, but that the simultaneous elections proposal when it is put by itself removes that constraint . The difficulty that I and the Government have had in proceeding with the concept of fixed term parliaments, which we still very much support in principle , is that this has proved to be a concept that has not won strong cross-party support. It is not yet a concept that can be said to be fully understood by the electorate in the way that is clearly the case with the simple simultaneous elections proposal which has now been before the electorate twice. The real reason for members of the Opposition opposing this now is the forlorn hope that they can gain some kind of political mileage out of arguing against it during an election campaign in which they have no other discernible policies to win them any kind of support. We are confronting now, with this performance over the last two days, the Opposition's fourth conversion in the last decade on the subject of simultaneous elections. If there was ever any principle involved in their calculations one would expect either a closely reasoned argument to be advanced or at least some sort of convincing or resounding declaration of faith. In fact, we have had neither in this instance. At least the position advanced by the Australian Democrats through Senator Macklin and Senator Jack Evans and also supported in this instance by Senator Hill had some credibility about it from a principled point of view, to the extent that the Democrats' position was one of opposition to simultaneous elections unless combined with the concept of fixed term parliaments. Against that background of both unfamiliarity by the electorate and a lack of cross-party support, it cannot realistically be supposed that that proposal would win support at a referendum. It is for that very practical reason that the Government has decided to take things a step at a time-to put in place a system of simultaneous elections and to keep, as a possibility for the future, should the mood, the atmosphere and the political climate change, the possibility of moving towards fixed term parliaments. Certainly, if support for fixed terms grows over time in the way that developments recently in Victoria and South Australia suggest that it might well do, that matter will be something that will be reconsidered by the Government. It does not make sense, as is proposed in the second reading amendment motion from the Democrats, to put two separate proposals to the electorate concurrently , one a simple simultaneous elections proposal of the kind now before us and the other a more complex fixed term proposal, because they would be mutually inconsistent rather than cumulative in the way in which they would operate if passed, and create all sorts of difficulties for the conduct of the referendum ballot accordingly. This is a difficulty we have had to face before with alternative proposals being mooted on the same subject matter to be put before the electorate at the one time. Simply, the proposition that is being sought to be advanced by the Democrats in their second reading amendment does not work and cannot be made to work, I do believe, whatever justification for it might be thought to exist in principle. One unhappy thing I notice missing from the contribution of the Democrats to this debate-one is not surprised that it is missing from the contribution of the Opposition-is the fact that support for simultaneous elections was very strongly given at sessions of the Australian Constitutional Convention, most recently and most particularly in Adelaide last year. There was a strong measure of cross- party support and cross-Government and Opposition support at that Convention for the concept of simultaneous elections. If we want to ascribe any weight or significance to that continuing process of constitutional reform carried out in that forum we should, I believe, give some weight or, if we will not give weight , at least acknowledgment, to that fact. I come back to the sheer transparent hypocrisy of the Opposition on this issue which reaches right into all the various arguments that have been advanced against this proposal in the course of this debate. I think the best way of demonstrating that hypocrisy is to quote back at the Opposition remarks that have been made by senior Opposition spokesmen on this issue over recent years. First of all, on the question of whether a referendum should be held in conjunction with an election at all, we are now being told by Senator Durack that the Government should put the proposals separately from the election. When the previous referendum package was before the Parliament, however, we had some Opposition members arguing that the referendum proposals should be put in conjunction with the election. For example, we had Mr Anthony saying on 20 October last year in the other place: There is no urgency about any of these Bills. The referendum could be held when the next Federal election takes place or, probably more appropriately, with the half Senate election that will take place some time before July 1985. On that same question of the timing of these things in conjunction with elections, I think it should also be said and put on the record that referendum proposals are very commonly being put at the same time as elections and there is nothing remotely unique or innovative about the proposal to do so on this occasion. One of the most notably successful examples of this was the social services referendum held in conjunction with the 1946 election. There are significant cost savings to be made in combining referendums with elections, of a kind that the Opposition has normally in other times been keen to press upon us. It is not giving the electorate credit to suggest that people will not be able to separate referendum matters out from electorate matters. It is a purely opportunistic, transparently cynical argument that has been advanced in this respect by Senator Durack on this occasion. Let me take another matter that has been the subject of debate. This is the question about supposedly giving the Prime Minister power, by virtue of this simultaneous elections proposal, over the Senate which he does not now have. In 1983 Mr Anthony very effectively scotched this argument by pointing out that a Prime Minister can already create the circumstances for a double dissolution and by so doing call out the whole of the Senate. He said that again on 20 October in the House of Representatives. In 1977 Mr Sinclair went further. He argued that the simultaneous elections proposal would ensure not that the powers of the Senate would be reduced in any way but that they would be enhanced. That was the proposition he stated on 17 February as recorded on page 204 of the relevant Hansard, the argument there being based, I think quite correctly for once from Mr Sinclair, on the greater accountability that it would provide for the Senate. We also had in 1977 Senator Durack on the same subject, as recorded on page 195 of the Senate Hansard for 17 February of that year, saying: Apart from the benefits of public convenience and savings on expenditure the proposal will benefit the Parliament. By ensuring that the people's will is reflected simultaneously in both Houses, it will provide a more satisfactory electoral basis upon which the government of the country can proceed. Then again the same Senator Durack, who was waxing indignantly lyrical in opposition to this measure here yesterday said on 12 October 1983, as recorded on page 1431 of the Senate Hansard: The Opposition acknowledges that a real problem has existed in Australia for the last 20 years and, in particular, since an early election was held for the House of Representatives in 1963. As a result of more frequent double dissolutions that have occurred in 1974, 1975 and, more recently, in early 1983, the two Houses have got out of phase. There has been and there now is a potential for them to be well and truly out of phase again because, after a double dissolution, half Senate, the short term senators, may well have to face the electorate well before the expiration of the existing three-year term of the House of Representatives. That was out of the mouth, as I have said, of Senator Durack just a few short months ago. We have had constantly asserted on that same general theme the argument-Senator Crichton-Browne put it vigorously, as did Senator Hill-that simultaneous elections may lead to more, not fewer, elections because without the restraint of half Senate elections occurring at three-yearly intervals, it is said, a Prime Minister again can call an election whenever he wants to. As to this, let me say that the record since the 1960s shows the reverse of this to be the case. On a number of occasions since then an early House of Representatives election has been called because without such an early election the people would have been faced with the huge expense and inconvenience of a half Senate election followed shortly after by a House of Representatives election. In other words, history shows that the trigger for early House of Representatives elections has commonly been the prospect of facing the country with a separate half Senate election, just as it is the case why we have to have an early election on this occasion. Separate half Senate elections are a burden on the people. They cost a great deal of money and they do not bring about changes in the government. For that reason they ought to be avoided at all costs. We ought not to have a repetition of the nonsense that has plagued this country's electoral system for the last decade or more. Let me go on to say something quickly about the interchange of powers proposal in respect of which again we have had some breathtakingly cynical arguments advanced by Senator Durack and others in the last two days. We are told by Senator Durack that on the one hand the interchange of powers proposal is unimportant and on the other hand the real reason for putting it forward is so that the States will be empowered to levy excise duties. As to the latter bit, coming from an avowed federalist as Senator Durack is supposed to be, it seems to me just a little bit rich to cast the criticism in those terms, particularly when one also recalls that the Australian Constitutional Convention has a sub- committee on the fiscal powers question, on which the Opposition is vigorously represented by one of its front bench members, which committee has, with the endorsement of that Opposition spokesman, actually gone so far as to recommend a constitutional alteration quite explicitly to allow the States to levy excise duties. The Government's view, on the other hand, has been that the advantage of the interchange proposal now before us is that that provides a framework for flexible negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States, the Commonwealth, of course, having a quite legitimate interest in the national interest in ensuring that any State taxes do not damage in that sense the national interest. The real point to make about the interchange of powers proposal is that it is not just some exotic piece of technical law designed, as Senator Durack said on one occasion, adopting his grovelling populist mode, to be of benefit only to the politicians and not to the people. In that respect, I dismiss for present purposes the crudeness of the argument but simply say that that statement is not true either. The real and most immediate utility for the interchange of powers proposal, if it can be put on the statute books, is in the area of family law and industrial relations which has created notorious difficulties because of the inability of the Federal and State constitutional constraints to enable rational legislative solutions to problems that, by their very nature, are national in character and are not capable of being divided into Federal and State boxes and are not capable of a national solution because of the present limitations on Federal and State power respectively. That is one classic area in which the kind of machinery provision which we are proposing here will not be merely of an abstract or esoteric benefit to those whose business it is to analyse the Constitution. The provision is likely to promote very real and immediate benefits to the people of Australia generally. I shall conclude by making some reference to the pious invocation of principle that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on 20 October 1983 in the other place. About the last package of constitutional referendum proposals debated by the Parliament he said: All the proposals are useful; indeed, some are very necessary. If carried, the changes will help to ensure that the Constitution is modern and relevant to Australia's needs, or more modern and more relevant to those needs. This ought to be an objective shared by both sides of the Parliament. That was Mr Peacock in 1983; it is now 1984, and he and the Opposition are, as I said, adopting a stance of opposition, in the case of the interchange of powers, to something they have supported, along with every State government and, for that matter, State Opposition during the 10 years going back to 1983. They are opposing this proposal, and they have changed their minds for the fourth time in 10 years on the subject of simultaneous elections. Once again, they have moved to a stance of outright opposition. It is the case, because of the procedures of section 128 of the present Constitution, that oppositions share a responsibility with governments to ensure that the Constitution is kept under review and is able to be changed when change is demanded, when sane and rational considerations demand that that be so. What is at stake here is not the Government's but the Opposition's good faith. What is at stake in this referendum campaign that is looming is not the reputation of the Government but the reputation of the Opposition. This week we are seeing in the Opposition's response to this legislation in the Parliament the same sort of crude, destructive, negative approach to constitutional reform that was so visible in its performance under Mr Peacock at the Adelaide convention in 1983 where what was sought was the short term political advantage, the quick headline , the crude grab at whatever media interest was passing by rather than any kind of thoughtful, constructive, rational approach to changing and reforming the difficulties of the Constitution that have beset this country ever since Federation. To respond in that way to these kinds of issues does not win respect or credibility. Mr Peacock and his Party will find that when this matter is taken to the people. When they campaign in the way that has been foreshadowed by their contributions in Parliament they will not win any respect from nor gain any credibility in the community at large. The community at large will appreciate, as it does already, that these are moderate and sensible proposals. Senator Martin —They haven't in the past. Senator GARETH EVANS —The community has demonstrated that fact. At the most recent opportunity to test their feelings, 62 per cent of the community nationally showed that attitude. I am confident that, notwithstanding the bloodymindedness, cynicism, opportunism and hypocrisy of the Opposition's approach on this occasion, these referendum proposals not only will be put to the people but will succeed. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.25) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) described the Liberal Party in a collective sense as, on more than one occasion, having supported simultaneous elections and, on other occasions, having opposed them. In the collective sense, that is inaccurate. I have always opposed simultaneous elections, and I want that fact to be recorded appropriately. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Jack Evans's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J. Haines, J. Baume, Peter Jones, G. N. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Lajovic, M. E. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John McClelland, DouglasChaney, F. M. MacGibbon, D. J. Childs, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. Coleman, R. N. Martin, K. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Messner, A. J. Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Scott, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. 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. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Button, J. N. Archer, B. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.38) —I move: 1. Page 1, clause 1, lines 4 and 5, leave out 'Simultaneous Elections' insert ' Terms of Senators'. I have circulated copies of two amendments. They are related but only the first can be moved at this point. In order to explain this amendment I need to explain the reasons for it in wider terms. The amendment is that the short title of the proposed Act as provided in the Bill, 'Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) 1984' be changed to, 'Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) 1984'. The long title of the Bill, which I shall seek to amend in due course, reads: An Act to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly . I concede that there is some improvement in the long title by reference to adjusting the terms of senators accordingly, but both the long title and the short title, which we are now proposing to amend, emphasise that this legislation is to provide simultaneous elections. This is trading on the support there seems to be in the community for the idea that there should be simultaneous elections, and that whenever there is an election for the House of Representatives there ought to be an election for half the Senate at the same time rather than separate and more frequent elections. We are all familiar with the argument. The reality is that there is no reason why simultaneous elections cannot take place. Except when the two Houses have got out of kilter after double dissolutions, traditionally the normal practice is to bring on simultaneous elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. Indeed, after double dissolutions it has been the practice to bring on an early election for the House of Representatives to coincide with the holding of the half Senate election. There is no absolute difficulty about having simultaneous elections, and indeed they have frequently occurred during the life of our Federation. But what this legislation primarily does is to force the Senate to accommodate itself to whatever timetable of election suits the Prime Minister of the day. This Bill is designed solely to enable the Prime Minister to call an election whenever he likes and to force the Senate to accommodate his whims for election timetables. At present the Prime Minister is confusing everybody by saying that he must have an early election for the House of Representatives because there is to be a half Senate election. Then he says that it means this will never have to happen again, that he does not want to manipulate elections or to have early elections, and so on, and that this legislation will enable Parliament not to have early elections in future. But the legislation does precisely the opposite. It will enable the Prime Minister in future to have elections whenever he wants them and to force half the Senate to come out with the House of Representatives on those occasions. The only real significance of this legislation is that it will shorten the term of senators. It will destroy the fixed term of senators and it will mean that the term of a senator is twice the term of a member of the House of Representatives. That is what this legislation is all about and always has been all about. Regardless of whether one believes it is a good idea, the fact is that the electorate should not be hoodwinked into believing that this is all about ensuring that we shall have simultaneous elections. I have already said that we do not need constitutional alterations to ensure simultaneous elections. We need a constitutional alteration to shorten the fixed term of six years for senators. The legislation will not seek to change the Constitution to give another fixed term of five, four or three years to senators. It will not protect the rights of the Senate in any shape or form from prime ministerial power. It will place the Senate totally in the hands of the Prime Minister and greatly enhance prime ministerial power. The Prime Minister at any time he wants an election for the House of Representatives will be able to force a severe reduction in the terms of senators. Whether one believes that is good or bad, when the people are asked to vote on it, they should be told exactly what the truth is and what this referendum really is about. Therefore, the Opposition believes that we should cease referring to this matter as we have done so often in the past as a proposal for simultaneous elections. In essence, it is not a proposal for simultaneous elections; it is a proposal to shorten the terms of senators. It is about the future status of the Senate and the short title should make that clear. It is illusory to refer to the legislation as providing for simultaneous elections as the short title does. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.47) —I want to make it clear , if it is not transparently clear already, that the Government will resist any attempt to change the long title of the Bill in the way proposed by Senator Durack. The shortest and simplest way I can make the point about the crudeness of the political tactic that is now being employed is to remind Senator Durack of the long title proposed by his own Government in 1977 when it put forward this simultaneous election proposal. The long title was as follows: A proposed law to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections are held at the same time as House of Representatives elections. What the Government has done on this occasion is to build the long title around exactly that same sentiment, which is an apt and precise description of what the Bill is basically about, but to acknowledge the point made by Senator Durack and also vigorously by the Australian Democrats that it is true that the Bill is not just about the timing of elections but also about the terms of senators. In acknowledging the force of that point, we have used the same sort of language, but added the further phrase, 'and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly'. In adding that further phrase we have made it clear that there is no question whatsoever of endeavouring to mislead the electorate as to the substance of this measure, but simply to describe aptly and precisely what it is about. For Senator Durack to abandon totally the concepts and the terminology that informed his own Government's 1977 Bill is to be hypocritical and breathtakingly cynical in a way that ought not to command the serious attention of this chamber. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.50) —We have just heard a tirade from the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) accusing us of crudeness of political action. Let us look at what he suggests we put to the people as the short title of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill: 'An Act to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are always held on the same day, and to adjust the terms of senators accordingly'. I ask Senator Evans: How crudely political can we get? We cannot get much cruder that that. It is a sleight of hand. It is indeed not telling the people, the electorate, the truth. It is misleading the people in a most crude fashion. The Government cannot do as it is doing; that is; hold an election of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the same day and have at that election a referendum saying: 'We are asking you to give us permission to do what we are doing today because we haven' t the power to do it'. That is absolutely idiotic and stupid. The Government cannot expect the people of Australia to believe it. For heaven's sake, does the Government want to have any credibility left? The people out there know the Government has the opportunity to hold such simultaneous elections because the Government is going to do it. Senator Gareth Evans —Not always. Senator WALTERS —Of course, the Government has. The Government can always hold a simultaneous election within the Senate limitations if it so desires. If the Prime Minister of the day wants to hold elections simultaneously he always can. The Attorney-General knows it and we know it. There is no use the Attorney trying to mislead the people. The people are not dumb. I do not care what he thinks of the electorate; it is not dumb. If the Attorney is referring to history, he will remember that it was the choice of the Prime Minister of the day not to hold elections simultaneously. That was what he chose. The people of the electorate are not dumb. The Attorney-General might think he is terribly bright and way above all the other Australians, but he is not. The majority of Australians are a lot brighter than the Attorney-General. Until the Attorney-General comes to understand that the majority of the electorate is brighter than he is he will continue to make a fool of himself, as he has done so often in this Parliament. The Attorney cannot send spy flights over Tasmania and not make a fool of himself. He cannot do what he has done repeatedly in this Senate and not make a fool of himself. Here he goes again. The Attorney has to understand that we are trying to help him. He is really upsetting the reputation of the Parliament. We do not want the people to say: 'Crumbs, are all politicians as barmy as this?'. Quite frankly, the Attorney-General is upsetting the reputation of politicians throughout Australia . The Attorney has to understand that the people can see through this silly nonsense. If the Government holds a simultaneous election straight after a double dissolution which puts the two Houses out of kilter, the people will ask why the Government cannot do that all the time. There is no reason why the Government cannot do it all the time. This legislation is just a sleight of hand. If the Attorney attempts deliberately to mislead the people it will reflect on his honesty. If I were the Attorney I would agree to the amendment moved by the Opposition because at least the people will then say: 'At least he is showing some honesty about the whole thing'. The Bill has nothing to do with a government having the power always to hold elections simultaneously. The Government has that power. The Bill has to do with allowing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to shorten the terms of senators so that he can call elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate whenever he so desires. That is what the Bill is about; nothing else. If the Prime Minister wanted to hold elections for the House of Representatives and half the Senate within six months of a previous election the passing of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill would give him the power to do so. Of course, the people understand that. If that were not the case it would not have been knocked back on two previous occasions. A few senators campaigning heavily in Australia had that proposal knocked back twice previously . It will be knocked back again. My advice to the Attorney is not to continue to show such stupidity but to agree to the amendment moved by the shadow Attorney- General. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.56) —Senator Durack has moved an amendment to leave out the words 'simultaneous elections' in the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill and to insert the words 'terms of senators'. Of course, the history of this is that when the Liberal Party of Australia wished to put this notion to the electorate it put it as 'simultaneous elections'. The Liberals sought to do what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is now seeking to do; that is, to use the phrase that will evoke the largest amount of support from the electorate. The Liberals conducted a political operation and that is being followed by the Attorney. I am not quite sure from what Senator Walters said whether she claimed the words were deceptive. Senator Martin —She did. Senator MACKLIN —She did; fine. Whether the use of the phrase 'simultaneous elections' is deceptive can be decided only on the basis of the actual Bill itself. If our proceedings were being broadcast now I am not sure the people would understand what was going on. We are talking about the part of the Bill called the short title. The short title ought to reflect the Bill itself. I think the best way to understand the Government's view of the bill might be to turn to the explanatory memorandum circulated by the Attorney-General. The explanatory memorandum describes clause 2 of the Bill as: The description of senators' terms as being for 6 years is deleted and replaced . . . by a term consisting of the two Houses of Representatives terms. That means that the Bill seeks to do something in relation to the terms of senators. The Bill seeks to change that section of Part II, headed 'The Senate', of Chapter I of the Constitution which deals with the terms of senators. Clause 3 of the Bill deals with section 9 of the Constitution, which relates to the times and places of the elections of senators. Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the issue of writs for senators and senators' terms. Clause 5 deals with disagreement between the Houses. On that basis, if one were seeking in an impartial way to find the best short title for the Bill I think, on balance, one would have to decide that this Bill deals with alterations to the Constitution affecting the terms of senators. The effect of altering the terms of senators is to achieve the desired result of the Government, and of the Liberal Party when that Party put the proposition forward; that is, to have simultaneous elections. The Bill itself, however, does not deal with the second issue. It deals with the first issue. It is a Constitution alteration Bill. While I accept the proposition put by the Attorney that the previous Liberal Government also ran this line, it seems to me that if one is trying to make a decision based on the actual Bill one surely has to make a decision in favour of the amendment moved by Senator Durack. Senator Gareth Evans —I take a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman. Are we debating the long title or the short title of the Bill at the moment? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Townley) —The short title. Senator Gareth Evans —The long title comes first, does it not? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —It comes last. Senator Gareth Evans —But it comes first in the order of events. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.01) —There are only a few things I would like to say in regard to the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Durack and the foreshadowed amendment to be moved by Senator Macklin. The first is this: Both of these proposals are an attempt to make the Government honest. I think there is much merit in that. As my colleague Senator Walters pointed out, it is possible for the Prime Minister to have simultaneous elections of both Houses of Parliament every time there is an election if that is what the Prime Minister wishes. Senator Walters did not hear it, but in response to that the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) interjected 'only within a 12-month period', or words to that effect. That is right. It may be only within a 12-month period but the Attorney-General was, in fact, confirming what Senator Walters was putting forward. Senator Harradine —Months earlier. Senator LEWIS —That is right. As Senator Harradine says, it is wrong only if the Prime Minister wants early elections. The situation is quite clear. So long as the Prime Minister of the day is prepared to allow the Parliament to run its full term or nearly its full term-and he has a period of 12 months in which to play around-it is possible, as it is now, to have simultaneous elections. Let us look at the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984. As Senator Macklin has pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to affect the terms of senators. Senator Walters —Shorten, not just affect. Senator LEWIS —The Attorney uses the word 'affect'. Senator Mason —Adjust. Senator LEWIS —Senator Mason interjects: 'Adjust'. That is the word that is used in the Australian Democrats' amendment. I will accept that, but of course, as my colleague Senator Walters keeps trying to say, the truth is that the inevitable result will be to shorten the terms of senators because one cannot adjust their terms upwards, only downwards. Although it is a pity that the Democrats' amendment does not use the term 'to shorten the terms of senators', the proposal put by the Democrats, like the proposal put by the Opposition, is designed to make this Government honest so that the Bill actually recites what the real purpose of this proposal which is to go to the people is all about. I will support both amendments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.04) —The previous speakers, Senator Macklin, Senator Lewis, Senator Walters and Senator Durack, have expressed their points of view which coincide very closely with mine. I do not wish to go over what they have said except to draw out a little more the conclusion that is being forced upon the Senate by the logic of what is being proposed and stated. As Senator Lewis has quite correctly pointed out, the interjection of the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) during Senator Walters's speech proves what the Government's proposition is all about. After all, as Senator Walters said, the Government has the ability now always to call a simultaneous election of both Houses of Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —Except when it is not in that 12-month period. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly. That is the point that the Attorney makes and now repeats. What he wants to do, in effect, is to have early elections, earlier than the 12-month period now provided for in the Constitution. What does that mean? It means not fewer elections but more frequent elections. I cannot see how anybody would be unable to see the logic of that situation. Yet that is the bottom line of what this referendum proposal is all about. I would also like honourable senators to give a little consideration to the effect of agreeing to this amendment. I say quite clearly that it will have two effects at least. One is that the title will more appropriately reflect what the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984 will do. Interestingly enough-and the Attorney-General would know this-the effect of passing this amendment plus the effect of opposing the Attorney-General's attempt to suspend Standing Orders will mean that the Government will have to choose to put off either the referendum or the election until next year. I am sure that Senator Evans has done his figures after having considered sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act. I am sure that he has consulted the Australian Electoral Office. We know and understand now why he is most concerned at this very moment that this amendment is not carried and that he gets his suspension of Standing Orders so that he can ride roughshod over the Standing Orders of the Senate in respect of the 21 days for the call. This debate is all about whether we are to have an election this year. The Attorney is most anxious about that, and I am sure that he has done his figures. So have I. All that the Senate has to do now to prevent an early election this year-- Senator Mason —Or a referendum. He could have a referendum at the same time. Senator HARRADINE —Of course, that is true. He does not have to have the referendum at the same time as the election. But then he would have no excuse, would he? All this debate is about is whether the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is to have an early election this year. The Senate has in its hands the ability to ensure that he is kept honest and to his word that he will allow Parliament to continue until the normal expiration of its term which, in the current instance, is April of next year. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.08) —Appeals to decency and consistency usually fall on deaf ears in parliaments and this place is no exception. But let me do both so far as the Liberals are concerned and, more particularly, the Australian Democrats. Senator Durack —What about your-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not appeal to Senator Durack's decency, because that would be stretching much too long a bow but I do appeal to his sense of consistency, ask him to consider whether there is any fundamental difference between this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill 1984, and the one that his Government advanced in 1977 under the title Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill and ask him to consider what is the difference between that measure and this measure which justifies the change in terminology which the Opposition is proposing not only for the long title-we will come to that in due course, although Senator Lewis I notice was a bit quick to get into it also-but also for the short title. I ask Senator Durack to consider how can he justify the change of tack that is involved in that at the moment. So far as the Democrats are concerned, I appeal to both their consistency and their decency. I appeal to their consistency because they have been prepared all along to accept the legitimacy of the expression 'simultaneous elections' as an appropriate one for this measure. Certainly that was the position they adopted in the latter part of last year when the package, as it then was, of five referendum Bills, was proposed. There was no suggestion at any stage from them that that was an inaccurate description. I appeal also to their decency because of the understandings that were reached at that time. It might be more appropriate to refer to those in the context of the long title of the Bill rather than the short one. I appeal to the Democrats since their stated enthusiasm for this measure extends only so far as to get it to the people in a form in which the people will understand what it is about so that the people can, in fact, pass upon it. I ask the Democrats: Are they advancing that particular cause by changing, at this point, the title of the measure, the description of the measure, and as a result the publicity associated with the measure, that has been understood for many years now as being of a particular kind and which has been understood as being about simultaneous elections? Are they doing anything but confusing the issue to change the title of this measure, both in the short term and more particularly the long term, in the way they are now proposing? Will this do anything to clarify the issue so far as the people who have to understand what this measure is about and pass up, on it are concerned? I ask the Democrats to explore their consciences in that respect and ask: Will it do anything other than obfuscate the issue and make it perhaps easier for those who thrive on obfuscation when they are resisting constitutional change? I understand that the Democrats have campaigned against the measure. That is their right and that is their entitlement. However, I have always understood the Australian Democrats to support clarification of the way in which these matters are put to the electorate. I can understand the technical point they are making, that the terms of senators are affected by this measure. I suggest that that point is sufficiently accommodated in the language of the long title in the form in which it comes before us in the Bill. I ask the Democrats to consider very seriously the implications of what they are doing by supporting the short title on this occasion and to think seriously of the virtues of both consistency and decency in the forthcoming vote. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.13) —Having just listened to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as best I could understand the line of his logic, what he was saying was that because the title now being used is the title which was used in 1977 by the then Liberal Country Party coalition, that is the premise that dictates him to suggest that that title ought to be used again. He has not sought to argue that the title is a fair reflection of the legislation. He is simply saying that because it was used in 1977 it ought to be used again. Of course that leads me to the conclusion that he is saying that because there was an inaccuracy then that inaccuracy ought to be perpetuated. That seems to be the thrust of the logic of his argument. I turn to Senator Durack's proposal to remove the words 'simultaneous elections ' and insert the words 'terms of senators'. I think the Attorney-General will be hard put to argue that that is not a more precise reflection of the contents of the legislation. This constitutional amendment is about the terms of senators. It is not about simultaneous elections. Simultaneous elections are already possible, as has been said before, simply by having the elections on the same day. It does not require a constitutional amendment. I believe that the short title should reflect the purpose of the legislation. The result of this constitutional amendment will be to change the terms of senators. It will not change the terms of members of the House of Representatives. It will not change the life, the period, of the Parliament. It simply changes the period for which senators will be elected. That period will be exclusively dictated by the Prime Minister of the day. Of course its effect is to change not only the terms of senators but also the powers of the Senate. Probably if we were more specific, more accurate and more precise we ought to include that in the short title. That is what this proposal is all about. It will shorten the terms of senators and reduce the powers of the Senate. If we have both those propositions in the short title we would then properly reflect the purpose of the constitutional amendment . The title of the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill ought, in my view, to reflect more than any other legislation the purpose and contents of the proposal. Of course a referendum is the only occasion when the Australian electorate is able to personally and single handedly reflect upon, contemplate and ultimately judge the merits and virtues of the legislation and the Constitutional amendment. If there is one occasion when we ought to be responsible it is this occasion. If there is one occasion when we ought to be very careful about how we describe the contents of legislation it ought to be on those occasions when the Australian people are being presented with a proposal so that they clearly understand what they are voting on. The best and most honest way of ensuring that they are able to make a proper, sensible and informed judgment on what they are casting a vote for ought to be reflected in the short title of the Bill. I believe that there is no compelling argument against the proposals put by the shadow Attorney-General. I am quite sure that, in his own heart, the Attorney-General knows from any stretch of logic or legal interpretation that the proposal that has been put by Senator Durack is, in fact , a precise reflection of the contents of the legislation and is a proposal more improved than that which is in the Bill as it stands. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.17) —Lest my silence be deemed to be consent, I make it absolutely clear for the record that of course I do not accept that the change in title that is proposed by the Opposition amendment more accurately reflects the content of the Constitution Alteration ( Simultaneous Elections) Bill, just as one does not say, when one sees a car going down the road: There goes a gear box, an engine, four wheels and an axle. Nor does one say, when one sees a measure of this kind: There goes a collection of provisions dealing with this, that and the other nuts and bolts that make up the end result. What this Bill is about is a Bill to ensure that simultaneous elections always take place, not just on occasions when it suits the convenience of whoever is calling the election. The adjustment of the terms of senators to produce that result is consequential upon that basic motivation, that basic statement, of what the intention of the legislation is all about. The effect of the measure is to produce a system of simultaneous elections. The means by which that effect is achieved, the means by which that end is achieved, certainly go, among other things, to the question of the terms of senators. It is simply a question as to what is the most appropriate characterisation. Up until today the most appropriate characterisation has been accepted on all sides of politics for the best part of a decade as a description in terms of simultaneous elections. For that now to be moved away from, in the way that is occurring here today, is a product of short term, political opportunism and cynicism rather than any principle judgment about what the proper characterisation of the content of this legislation is. I ask those opposite, who are minded to behave in this way, to contemplate the consequences, in terms of the credibility of themselves and their parties, when they go before the electorate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.19) —I will just address a question to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Does he admit that at present the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can, within the 12 months' limit of the Senate, call an election of both Houses of Parliament whenever he likes? Senator Robert Ray —It is the Governor-General who determines that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.19) —I think Senator Ray has knocked the nail on the head. If the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) so advises the Governor-General and if the Governor-General accedes, yes it is the case, within the 12-month period prior to the required dissolution of the Senate, that that can occur. But that is not the point in issue here. The point is to create a situation where by simultaneity always occurs in the event of a House of Representatives election being called, for whatever reason, for example, the loss of a majority in the House of Representatives by virtue of people crossing the floor. That is one circumstance, quite apart from political opportunism, that might lead to an early election in a situation of a finely balanced House of Representatives. It is in those circumstances that there might well be a need to have an election well before that final 12-month run home for the Senate. It is in those circumstances that it would be manifestly absurd-this has been generally accepted on most sides of politics and by most individuals-to create a situation whereby one could not simultaneously deal with the situation in the Senate and, as a result, one had to confront the possibility of another election for the Senate within a period of 12 or 18 months thereafter. That is one situation that can occur, albeit it has not occurred very often in our history and hopefully will not occur too often in the future, but it is one example of an entirely principled or non-partisan opportunistic way in which a situation might arise whereby this Bill will have some real utility and real effect in ensuring that we did not have a multiplicity of elections in the future in the way we have had them in the past. I hope that the good faith of those putting the measure forward, from the point of view of getting some stability and sanity into our system of government, will be appreciated and that we will stop this cheap point scoring that has been so characteristic of this debate in the last hour or two. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.23) —I thank the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for his answer. What he has said is: 'Yes, within constraints the Prime Minister can call an election whenever he likes'. He then threw in a red herring and said: 'Should the confidence of the Government be lost in the House of Representatives then that would be the occasion when one would not be able necessarily to call an election of the Houses'. That really is a red herring because that is applicable only to the House of Representatives; it has nothing to do with the Senate. Indeed, it is one of the things that the founding fathers decided should not apply to the Senate because of the stability we need. If that occurred in the House of Representatives that would be fine but it certainly should not apply to the Senate. So we leave out that minor possibility that the Attorney-General admitted has not occured very frequently in our history. My next question is: Does that really mean-leaving out the example the Attorney gave-that the only time the Prime Minister cannot call an election of both Houses is under those limitations? In other words, does it prohibit his calling elections too frequently-two elections, one after the other, in very close proximity? Is that the only time that the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, cannot call both Houses together-two quick elections in close proximity, well under the three-year limit? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.24) —I will treat the question as rhetorical but, to the extent that it had substance, I have given the answer in my previous reply. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.25) —In 1977 a proposal of this sort was put to the people. As is appropriate under the Constitution both a Yes case and a No case were circulated to every voter. On page 2 of the No case that was circulated, which is the first page of real material, the front page is a summary, we find: Simultaneous Elections 'an Exercise in Deception'. The No case goes on to set out, in a number of pages, the extent to which it is an exercise in deception. I would like particularly to quote the- Senator Robert Ray —Who wrote this? Senator PETER RAE —It was written on behalf of the group of senators who opposed the referendum. I was one of that group and one of the co-authors. I can claim consistency in relation to this matter having voted against it in 1973, in 1974, twice in 1975, and in 1977. And I will be voting against it again in 1984. Senator Robert Ray —And in 1988. Senator PETER RAE —And any other time that it is ever put up. As to the deception and the real intent of this Bill, I would like to quote none other than the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button. On 22 February 1977 he is quoted in Hansard at page 261 and 262 as saying: Of course, the real importance and significance of this proposal from our point of view in the Opposition- that is, the Australian Labor Party- is that it does what many of its critics say it will do. It limits the significance and influence of the Senate . . . Senator Robert Ray —Hear, hear! Senator PETER RAE —I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. That is what he would like to see. I take it that he agrees with his Leader's comments. Senator Robert Ray —Always. Senator PETER RAE —So what we have now is further confirmation that the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is deceptive. It is not about simultaneous elections; it is about limiting the power of the Senate. Senator Robert Ray has just confirmed what Senator Button said in 1977. I will read again what Senator Button said: Of course, the real importance and significance of this proposal from our point of view in the Opposition- I interpose that at that time it was the Australian Labor Party- is that it does what many of its critics say it will do. It limits the significance and influence of the Senate . . . we do have a very strong view that the powers of the Senate should be delimited at every opportunity. These are the basic reasons why we will be supporting the legislation. In saying that we are being consistent with everything we have said before. Senator Robert Ray has confirmed that and that is what he is saying now that the Bill is a deception, that the Bill is not for the purpose of simultaneous elections but for limiting the powers of the Senate. I am glad to have confirmation that not only was that the opinion of the present Leader of the Government in the Senate in 1977 but it is the opinion of the Government today. Senator Robert Ray —I must say I don't represent the Government necessarily. Senator PETER RAE —I thought the honourable senator said 'we'. I thought he was speaking on behalf of the Government. Senator Withers —There is more power on the back benches than on those front benches. Senator PETER RAE —I thank Senator Withers for his interjection. I believe that a number of people have aptly and appropriately summarised what this Bill is all about. I do not want to quote them in detail. Let me just quote what the late Sir Phillip Lynch said when the matter was debated in the House of Representatives in 1974: . . . its adoption would impair the proper functioning of our bicameral system of government. Tying the Senate to the House of Representatives in the manner proposed by the Bill would weaken its independence . . . in short the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill is not simply unnecessary but also is cunningly deceptive in its intent. 'Cunningly deceptive in its intent' were the words used by the late Sir Phillip Lynch in 1974 when he was discussing this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —What did he say in 1977? What did they all say in 1983? Senator PETER RAE —The Bill has been voted on by the Liberal Party of Australia once in 1973, once in 1974, and twice in 1975. It was voted against on each of those occasions by the then members of the Liberal Party. Senator Robert Ray —What about 1977? Senator PETER RAE —In 1977 there was a split vote, as is well known, and as history records. Senator Robert Ray —Who won? Senator PETER RAE —We won; we, the minority who opposed it, won. Senator Robert Ray —Who won in the Liberal Party? Senator PETER RAE —We did. We won the referendum; I thought that was winning it. Senator Gareth Evans —Get on with it. Senator PETER RAE —There were interjections to which I was responding. I thought the Attorney-General would be interested to know the answers to them. Senator Robert Ray —It is interesting to note the inconsistency of your Party. Senator PETER RAE —There is a lot more consistency in relation to our Party than there has been in relation to a number of the promises that have been made by this Government and dishonoured, one after another, from the day that it took office. If we want to talk about consistency and debate that, let us spend a little time giving some examples of the inconsistencies and all the rest of the promises that were made about what the Government would do. Senator Gareth Evans —It is a joy to watch your consistency! Senator PETER RAE —I have had a consistent attitude to this, Senator Evans, throughout the whole time. I am speaking for myself at the moment. Conceivably a government could go back to the people time and again forcing election after election until it won control of the Senate. It could keep doing so until it destroyed the watch dog and turned it into a rubber stamp stacked with its own unquestioning supporters. That-I refer back to what Senator Button said-is the desire of this Government. There would be a substantial transfer of power away from the States, represented as they are by the Senate, to the Executive Government of the day particularly the Prime Minister of the day and the powers which he has. So it is an effective step towards the destruction of democracy as we have known it in its bicameral form in Australia. That is the intention, admitted by Senator Button in 1977 and confirmed by Senator Robert Ray today. In support of Senator Durack's amendment, what better proof could we have than the voices of the people who are putting the proposal up themselves that it is a deception, and intended to be a deception, and that it is intended to break down the power of the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.32) — The propositions made by the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his speech before questions were put to him by Senator Walters concerned the debate on this particular item last time round. As he pointed out, there was no vote nor any debate on the short title last time round. I also bring to the Attorney's attention the fact that at that time there was the support of a substantial number of people from the Liberal Party of Australia. I am not sure whether there was any support from the National Party of Australia. The proposition was that the simultaneous elections and the other proposals would be supported. The Australian Democrats pointed out in our amendment to the motion for the second reading, which the Attorney-General voted against, that the situation is identical, but that we now have opposition. On this matter the Attorney-General stated: . . . opinion on this issue-- he was referring to fixed terms- as between the major parties is hopelessly divided . . . given the history of referendas on constitutional matters in this country, it does make it extremely implausible that the proposal would attract the necessary majority support . . . If that is the case there is no reason to go ahead with this matter but every reason for the Governments to revert to its original proposition, the propositon put to the people in 1983, that it would seek, as a matter of major constitutional reform, to have fixed terms. The element of stability-I do not want to quote the various speeches made in this place by the present Attorney- General-that would be introduced by that proposal and the radicalness of that type of constitutional reform are things which I would have thought this Government, in the rhetoric that it has brought forward, would be willing to continue. The fixed term and simultaneous election proposals are now in an identical basket. The Attorney has every reason to go back to the promise that he made to the people of genuine constitutional reform. This would indeed stabilise the structure of elections from now on. If the Attorney-General had been able at the time to put forward the proposal it would have been carried by the people despite the opposition by the major part of the Liberal and National parties. From our position there is substantial difference in the situation that occurred last time and the situation now. The Attorney has in fact lost the only reason that he gave anywhere publicly for not introducing the fixed term proposal. The only reason given for not introducing it was that he did not have the support of the Liberal Party. He does not have the support of the Liberal and National Party on this issue. Therefore, following his logic, which is recorded in Hansard, he must now desist from this proposal and go back to the proposal which I believe, has the support of the Australian Labor Party- presumably it was a promise made to the electorate-which certainly has the support of the Australian Democrats and which, I think, would have the support of major constitutional reformers in this country. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.34) —There are many ways in which one can try to rationalise an act of sabotage and we have just heard Senator Macklin doing his best. But let the characterisation of the situation stand as I have just put it. It is an act of sabotage for the Australian Democrats to turn their backs on this particular proposal. It is quite at odds with their stated desire to have this matter go before the people in a comprehensible way, a way that will be recognised, understood and voted upon in a balanced and properly judgemental way by the people. It is introducing an element of change, an element of confusion in what has been a well understood concept, well argued and well debated over a long period. To change the title in this way, more particularly to change the long title in the way that is foreshadowed, is fundamentally to produce a situation where confusion is likely to be the order of the day. The reason why I do not accept the reasoning which underlies Senator Macklin's basic point that all bets are off because this is a different environment now with the Opposition having taken the position that it has is that by no means all bets are off so far as the likely prospects of success of this particular proposal are concerned provided it is put to the electorate in a way that is comprehensible, understandable and familiar. The reason that I believe the prospects for success are good are twofold, notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberal and National parties. The first reason the chances of success are good is that it is a familiar proposal, one that was put before the electorate in 1974 and again in 1977 and one that has been constantly discussed in the public domain ever since. The concept of fixed terms by comparison for all its charms-I do not resile in any way from my enthusiasm for them-is not a concept that is either well understood or familiar and it certainly has not been around the area of public discourse nearly as long. It is the fact, for a start, that the concept is a familiar one and one that has been put before the electorate twice before and, indeed, won a substantial majority as we all know in 1977 that must give this proposal an excellent chance of success, notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberals and Nationals to it. I hope that Senator Macklin will acknowledge the force of the point I am making. The other point that makes me still confident of success of the simultaneous elections proposal, if it can be put to the electorate in those terms, is the sheer history of the performance of the Liberal and National parties on this issue over the last ten years. They cannot possibly sell their stance of opposition to the electorate on this one as a principled one when the evidence is there for the electorate's eyes and everybody else's to see in terms of the very fulsome support for the concept expressed by the leading spokesman-true, not all of them-of the Party, certainly in 1977, and certainly as recently as last year. Against that background, what else will the electorate think of the opposition to this particular referendum than that it is the product of cynical, political opportunism. I believe the electorate will regard the response of the Liberal and National parties in those terms and will be prepared as a result, given its long familiarity with these issues, to look at the issue on its merits and to vote accordingly. So I believe the logic, if such it be, that underlies Senator Macklin's heroic attempt to distinguish the situation that confronts us today from the situation that his Party and mine discussed and agreed about as recently as a few months ago simply cannot be accepted. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.39) — I cannot accept the comments made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about the Australian Democrats in this regard. In an earlier speech he impugned our honesty and asked whether we thought in the amendment, which is still in the course of review, we are expressing honestly to our conscience what is the intention of the referendum. The answer to that is yes, we do believe that is so. I would have thought that all the debate that has gone on in this place over the last couple of days and all the statements that have been made by Senator Macklin, myself, Senator Jack Evans and others, would have made it abundantly clear that the Democrats do not regard this amendment as an act of sabotage. It is not an act of sabotage; it is a sincere attempt to convey this matter to the people, if it is to be put to the people-we do not want it not to be-in a way which is not deceptive to them. I noticed in one of the newspapers this morning a quotation from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Possibly not everything he said was quoted but the point that came through quite strongly was basically that the Government was going to put up this referendum which would make sure that the people would not be able to play around with election dates in future. I would have thought that it was clear enough that that is the Government's intention. It wants to try to tell the people that this referendum will provide for elections to be held at the same time-great-and will mean that there will be fewer elections. But that is not the case. Speaker after speaker in this place has made that abundantly clear . It is less than honest of the Attorney-General to say that the Australian Democrats are taking a dishonest view or breaking agreements or things of that kind. Senator Macklin put a reasonable, rational point of view. It was not necessarily heroic; it was a logical, sensible point of view in which he pointed out that it is the Government that has reneged in this matter. It has reneged on the Australian people and on its campaign promise to associate this whole issue with a fixed term. Has the message not yet got through to the Attorney-General and the Government that the way to get this measure through is to bring back the fixed term proposal? What does the Attorney-General have against it? In opposition he was constantly complaining about the Liberal Party having the facility to call elections at odd times. The Australian people do not want it. That is abundantly clear. They want what applies in other enlightened democracies-a fixed term. It still remains for the Attorney, I believe, to take this point seriously on board and to take it to his Party, saying that the rest of the Senate is disinclined to allow it to have a referendum on this issue on dishonest terms. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.42) —I wish to answer a little of what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been saying about people changing their minds by referring to one eminent academic, Mr Malcolm Mackerras, with whom I well recall debating this matter on television in 1977. He expressed a view then in favour of this being an appropriate name and an appropriate amendment to the Constitution. Since then he has done more homework in relation to the matter and would, I am sure, confirm-- Senator Messner —If he were here. Senator PETER RAE —Were he sitting in the gallery as he is in fact, he would confirm that he has now changed his mind completely and that he regards the terminology 'simultaneous elections' as deceptive and the effect of the amending legislation, if passed, to be totally undesirable for the workings of a bicameral parliamentary democracy. I exampled him as one of those who upon reflection can see that the attitudes which they held at one time may not necessarily have been the most appropriate attitudes and who upon reflection may reconsider the arguments which have been put consistently by many Liberals in this chamber and elsewhere, and expressed most vigorously by leading members of the Liberal Party of Australia in the States of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia. Members from each of the States comprised the No committee in 1977. A wide cross-section of people have over time held the view that this is a deceptive referendum attempt, a deceptive naming and an attempt to gain power, as Senator Button said, for the Executive over the Senate, not for any other purpose to do with making elections less frequent. For Mr Hawke, as Senator Mason said earlier, to be giving the impression that this will mean fewer elections is a further deception of the people of Australia. Let me quote Mr Gordon Freeth, the former Minister for External Affairs, who in 1974, in a letter published in the West Australian, said: Elections could be more frequent and not less frequent as intended. Imagine the case as in December 1972 when Labor won a convincing victory in the House of Representatives but faced a hostile Senate. Flushed with victory and riding on the crest of the wave of enthusiasm that followed a new style of government, the Prime Minister would have almost certainly sought a new election within the first six months. Is there a feeling of deja vu about that? This is what was written in 1974. Let me go on: If half the Senate had been elected at the December election, the remaining half would have been subjected to the surge towards Labor with every prospect of giving the Whitlam Government control of both Houses. If this were to be followed by a strong political reaction, giving the Liberals a win at elections three years later, they too would find it easier to purge the Senate by holding another election quickly. So in four years there would be four elections for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. If indeed the real object of the change is to achieve fewer elections someone has blundered. If the real object is to make the Senate conform to the Lower house-that is another matter. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, until 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be raised and discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.46) —Yesterday an Australian Associated Press bulletin from Brisbane reported that 'Tax Payers United today described the Federal Budget as a Con Job.' The report then went on to quote the organisation' s president, Viv Forbes: 'If anyone is perpetuating a con job, to use a term I seldom employ, it is Viv Forbes.' Unfortunately much of the media has been conned by him, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Viv Forbes is associated with the so-called Progress Party and is often quoted by ABC radio news services in Queensland. I sometimes wonder whether the ABC has looked at the public support that Mr Forbes's party can muster. I do not think it has, because if it did it would not hold the Progress Party in high regard and it would go close to dismissing it as an irrelevancy. Let us look at the support that the party receives in Queensland. In the 1977 Senate election, the Progress Party fielded a team of four in Queensland. If nothing else, it is optimistic. The Australian Labor Party and the Liberal- National parties, which were then in coalition, each fielded a team of three. Nevertheless, Mr Forbes, who headed the team, polled 7,003 votes and his whole team could muster only 8,376 out of a total formal vote of just over a million. This is a percentage support of 0.76 per cent. In 1980, the Progress Party's optimism had dimmed. Two candidates only were nominated for the Senate in Queensland. The leader again was Mr Forbes. The whole team polled a mere 3,399 votes out of a total formal vote of 1.1 million. Its support represented 0.29 per cent of the total vote. Not to be defeated, the Progress Party again fielded a team of two, again headed by Mr Forbes, in the 1983 Senate election in Queensland. This time luck was with the party and it drew the first position on the Senate ballot paper. From that position, the Party managed to poll a total of 10,787 votes, which was 0.86 per cent of the formal vote. No doubt, some of that apparent support was due to the donkey vote. To put that 0.86 per cent of the vote in perspective, it should be noted that in 1977 the Socialist Party of Australia polled 2.9 per cent of the vote after it headed the Senate ballot paper. Three years later, when it was well down the ballot paper, its percentage dropped to 0.22 per cent. What I wish to stress is that the Progress Party receives scant support from the people. To gain the publicity it does from the media, one would think that certain parts of the media wrongly regarded it as a major political group in Queensland. It clearly is not and cannot profess to represent a significant section of Queensland thinking. The same can be said of the organisation Tax Payers United. It hardly evolved as a needed group in the community. Mr Forbes stated in the Courier-Mail on 8 June last that it took him three months to organise. Amongst its members are Bert Kelly, formerly a Liberal member of the House of Representatives but rejected for pre-selection by his own party, and Mr John Martyr, formerly of this place. John Martyr was the honourable member for Swan in the House of Representatives but was rejected by the electors. He was appointed to the Senate but the first time he faced the electors he was rejected for this chamber. He will be remembered in this place as a person of extreme right wing views. John Martyr had a penchant for changing parties. He was in the Australian Labor Party until 1955; the Democratic Labour Party until 1971; and then he joined the Liberal Party. One thing that he has in his favour, I suppose, is that he drew the line at the National Party. But one wonders whether he is now considering the Progress Party. I would suggest that the narrow base of support of the Progress Party and its recent clone, Tax Payers United, should be acknowledged by the media. That narrow base should put the views of these organisations in perspective. Sitting suspended from 12.52 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm that more than one million taxpayers will move into a higher tax bracket by June 1985 as a result of the new tax scales? Is it true that, despite the so-called tax cuts, $2,755m extra will be raised in pay as you earn tax this year-that is, more than $8 per taxpayer per week more than was raised in the previous year? Under the Government's assumption that there will be an increase of 3 per cent-- Senator Elstob —We have more workers. Senator CHANEY —I very much appreciate the assistance given when asking my question, but I was just pointing out that the Government's assumption is that there will be an increase of 3 per cent this year in the number of pay as you earn taxpayers. Taking that assumption into account and using the Government's figures, each pay as you earn taxpayer will pay an average of $8 per week extra. Will the Minister confirm those figures? Senator BUTTON —I had some help when Senator Chaney was asking his question. Of course it is true that more people will be paying PAYE tax as a result of the Goverment's employment policies, which have been implemented since the Australian Labor Party came to office. The first part of Senator Chaney's question was about tax scales. I make the point that what matters most for the taxpayer is not so much the marginal rate of tax on the last dollar he earns but the net pay left in his pocket after tax. The tax cuts will boost every taxpayer's after-tax income. I should point out also that 2.2 million taxpayers will face a reduced marginal tax rate of 25 per cent instead of 30 per cent. I am not in a position to dissent from the overall proposition in Senator Chaney's statement that receipts from PAYE tax will increase substantially in the coming year. I can take it no further than that. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of that response, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate check the figures that I have given him? Will he advise the Senate whether it is true that the average pay as you earn tax payable this year, taking account of the Government's tax cuts, will be $8 per taxpayer per week more, in other words, that there will be an increase in the pay as you earn tax payable by people under the new tax scales? Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women been drawn to remarks made by the Queensland State President of the Country Women's Association that country women would not be granted the same facilities and opportunities that city women would receive under the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and that the Act discriminates against rural women in favour of city women? Do such remarks represent a distortion of the effects of the Sex Discrimination Act? Senator RYAN —If it is true that the President of the Queensland branch of the Country Women's Association made remarks to that effect, they are certainly a distortion of the effects of the Sex Discrimination Act on rural women. I hope that the Country Women's Association has been wrongly reported, because it is an organisation for which this Government and I have the greatest respect. We regularly consult the Country Women's Association and take advice from the Association on the needs of rural women. Many of those needs are being met by way of special programs, such as the isolated children's parents allowance to assist parents to send their children to boarding schools, the accommodation assistance scheme and the special assistance that is given to those people who need to travel from isolated areas for health services. There are, in fact, special programs for country people, including women, which try to offer some compensation for some of the difficulties involved in living in isolated or rural areas. The provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act will protect women and men from discrimination, in the areas that it covers, equally, whether they are in the city or in the country. I believe that it is just as true to say that there are women in country areas who experience discrimination in employment. Given the very high rate of female unemployment, particularly of young women in country areas, I would say that the Sex Discrimination Act would be even more useful in those areas than in the cities. It is true also that there are colleges of advanced education in country areas. Women will be given equal opportunities as a result of the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act on tertiary institutions . Other provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act, such as access to finance, accommodation and goods and services, and the opportunity to be a full member of a registered club, will be of great benefit to women living in rural and country areas, at least equal to the extent that they will be of benefit to women in the city. In some cases, because of the greater difficulties experienced by women in country areas, those provisions will be of greater benefit to country women. Any suggestion of any disadvantage to country women as a result of our enacting the Sex Discrimination Act is wrong. What I hope the Country Women's Association will do, as I hope all other women' s organisations will do, is to make it their business to become very well informed about the benefits that our Act offers to country women. I hope that those organisations will ensure that their membership is fully aware of the benefits and will give assistance and advice to members should they wish to take advantage of the legislation, to make a complaint under it. It is our belief that the Sex Discrimination Act will be of benefit to all women throughout Australia, and that certainly goes for country women as well. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that the changes in the first home owners scheme will adversely affect hundreds of single people who are currently negotiating for a home loan and whose eligibility for such a loan was dependent upon receipt of moneys from the scheme? Does the Government recognise that such people may be forced out of arrangements for the purchase of homes? Why was not some phasing-in period provided to protect these people who have found themselves left high and dry by the Budget decision? Senator GRIMES —I suppose that the most successful scheme introduced by the Government in the last year has been the first home owners scheme. It has been praised by the building industry, the real estate industry, the unions and, of course, those who have benefited from it. Senator Messner —Ask the people who are losing their homes what they think about it. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner, who is more interested in tax evasion, should keep out of matters he does not know about. Senator Button —He is more interested in wine. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner is more interested in wine, as Senator Button said. The first matter of public importance he has put up in this place this sitting is about wine, and that reflects his priorities. The first home owners scheme has been highly successful and highly praised. Of course, expenditure on this item has exceeded all the Government's expectations last year. It is for budgetary reasons that the first home owners scheme has had to be modified in the way referred to by Senator Bjelke-Petersen. When making modifications of this type, it is essential that the Government-it has done this as it does with all such schemes-look to those who are in most need. Those in most need are, obviously, families with young children. Those in lesser need are the single people to whom Senator Bjelke-Petersen referred. That was why the modifications were made. I do not believe, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen does, that a large number of people will lose the possibility of owning a home because of this change. The simple fact is that under the previous Government when there was no such scheme most of those people had no hope of getting into home ownership. For that reason, we believe that the changes were reasonable. They had to be made for budgetary reasons, but it is a successful scheme. To criticise it in this way can only be described as nitpicking. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women a question about the Government's advertising campaign for the Sex Discrimination Act. What response has there been to that campaign? Are many complaints being received under the Sex Discrimination Act? Senator RYAN —The Attorney-General seems very anxious to answer this question, since the Act is now under his administration. Senator GARETH EVANS —Since I am the one who has the brief on the question. Be fair. My Act came into force on 1 August. The Government advertised the new Act with advertisements in all metropolitan daily newspapers and the provincial and country Press, in ethnic newspapers and with the distribution of a booklet. The booklet is being sent to key people and organisations affected by the legislation, to employers, club secretaries, trade unions, educational institutions, and so on. It is also being distributed through post offices throughout Australia. I am advised that the campaign has proved extraordinarily successful. So far there have been over 45,000 requests for the booklet outlining the provisions of the Act, and hundreds of requests for information. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner has received 314 requests for assistance under the Act and there have been 36 registered complaints, of which two have already been resolved. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Are the threatened rain forests of Daintree on the register of the National Estate because of their environmental significance, and has not the world respected naturalist David Attenborough described the region as one of the most breathtaking wild areas in the world and said that beyond any dispute it is a treasure? Is the Minister aware that, in the 200 years of European settlement in this country, three-quarters of the rainforest has been destroyed, leaving a total area of rain forest in this entire country that could be put into a circle of only 70 kilometres in diameter? Does not the Government have the power under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to protect the area? Given that the Daintree region has been recognised as an irreplaceable part of Australia's heritage and that the Government has the power to act now to prevent any further destruction, when can we look forward to the Government acting in the same courageous way as it did with the Franklin River? Senator RYAN —I was asked a question about the possible actions that the Australian Government could take with respect to the protection of the Daintree area by, I believe, one of Senator Chipp's colleagues, a couple of days ago. I gave a great deal of detailed information to the Senate then. Senator Chipp —But you did not say when. Senator RYAN —I think I explained to the Senate that there is a quite lengthy process of seeking to have the area judged by the World Heritage Committee to see whether it is assessed to be of such outstanding importance as to justify its inclusion on the World Heritage List. I think it is true to say that that is a quite lengthy procedure and one which the Australian Government does not have any capacity to short circuit. Senator Chipp —But you have the power now. Senator RYAN —I believe that the Australian Government has the power to act in environmental matters, as we did with respect to the Gordon below Franklin area, only when the area has been included in- Senator Gareth Evans —Or nominated. Senator RYAN —Or nominated for the World Heritage listing, and I think it is from that international Act that our power as a national government to protect comes. We are not yet at that stage with the Daintree River area. We may come to that stage, and I believe that the Minister is taking the necessary steps. Many areas are nominated for world heritage listing but are rejected by the World Heritage Committee. So far, only 165 areas in the world have been accepted for the World Heritage List, and Australia has five of those areas on the list. So I think it is quite clear that Australian governments have been active in pursuing the possibility of international action via the World Heritage List to protect our national environment. We are not being inactive with respect to this area. As I said when I spoke on this matter two days ago, I shall be seeking further information from the Minister. The matter is of concern to the Government, and I believe that the Minister, Mr Cohen, is taking all necessary steps. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I submit to the Minister, with great respect, that unintentionally she has misled the Senate. I submit to her this simple question: Does not the Government have the power now under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act to protect the area because it is of national renown, regardless of whether or not it is on the World Heritage List? Senator RYAN —My understanding is that we do not have a general power as the Commonwealth Government to protect any area within Australia simply because we judge it to be important. My understanding-it may well be that the Attorney- General will need to elucidate this-is that the special power that we had with regard to the Gordon below Franklin came from its having been included on the World Heritage List. I can see that Senator Chipp is not satisfied with that response. Indeed, it is not the most constitutionally complete response that it is possible that someone could give. I will seek further information on the matter but my understanding is that we need to take that next step of nominating the area and having it included on the World Heritage List before we have the same broad ranging powers that we were able to use to save the Gordon below Franklin temperate rain forest. Senator HEARN —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that even though prescription charges have not increased, there have been some instances in which the number of tablets for a prescription has been reduced? This means that those who are least able to afford this hidden cost are shouldering the burden. The people who are directly affected are pensioners, those on sickness benefits, and people who suffer from chronic illnesses. What action can the Minister take to overcome this problem? Senator GRIMES —I had some warning that Senator Hearn was concerned about this matter. I am informed by the Minister for Health that the honourable senator must be referring to metoprolol tablets of 100 milligram strength, where the maximum quantity available on the National Health Service prescription has been reduced on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee from 50 tablets with two repeats to 30 tablets with two repeats. This change took effect from 1 April 1984. The Minister informs me that general marketing approval for these tablets and the 50 milligram tablets was given in 1976 and 1977, and it was listed as a pharmaceutical benefit in December 1977 as the 100 milligram tablet. The recommended dose for the management of hypertension has recently been reviewed. Arising from this review the approved prescribing information now states: Some patients may respond to 50 milligrams once daily. However, a large number of patients will respond to 100 milligrams once daily as initial and maintenance therapy. A recent review by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee indicates that many patients are taking in excess of 100 milligrams daily. Accordingly, to encourage more rational prescribing of the drug and to increase flexibility in dosing, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommends listing of a 50 milligram tablet-100 with two repeats-and for the 100 milligram tablet a reduction in the maximum quantity to 30, that is, one month's supply at normal dosage, plus two repeats. In addition, special provisions exist under the pharmaceutical benefits system to assist chronically ill patients who require larger quantities of drugs. Under these provisions a doctor may, if he considers it to be in his patient's interest, apply to the Regional Director of the Commonwealth Department of Health in his State for authority to prescribe a quantity in excess of the listed maximum quantity. Normally a quanitity sufficient for approximately one month's treatment at the higher dosage levels, with two repeats, may be authorised by the Director. One patient contribution fee is payable for each supply of the benefit so authorised. However, I stress that action in this regard is a matter for the doctor to initiate at his own discretion. Senator HAMER —I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority has decided not to pass suggested references from the Costigan Commission directly to the intergovernment committee but has instead referred them to a committee of lawyers headed by Mr Phillip Cummins, QC? Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Fred Sylvester, former Head of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence , who said on the PM program last night that this was no way to combat organised crime and involved a considerable security risk? Has Mr Justice Stewart sought or been offered any briefing by Mr Commissioner Costigan on uncompleted investigations? Has Mr Commissioner Costigan written to both the Attorney- General and the Prime Minister expressing concern at the way in which the transition from his inquiry to the Crime Authority is being carried out? Will the Attorney-General table any such correspondence to put to rest public disquiet that certain matters under investigation by Mr Costigan might simply disappear and never be heard of again? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that a team of lawyers working to the three full time commissioners, and headed for the moment by Mr Phillip Cummins, QC, is presently sifting through the compilation of material and the mass of supporting data in the Costigan Commission's records that was put to the new Authority by Mr Costigan. It is not a matter of anybody abdicating responsibility. It is a matter of shaping up a mass of fairly intractable material, some of it of great complexity, into the form of possible references for the new commission. It involves working out that which is appropriate for formal references through the intergovernment committee or by way of direct unilateral reference by the Commonwealth, working out that which is appropriate for further investigation by the Commission and that which perhaps does not justify further investigation. My understanding is that that process, which is obviously long and complicated, is by no means complete but that it is contemplated that a number of matters will be put to the intergovernment committee when it meets in a few weeks time. There is no foundation at all of which I am aware for any suggestion of a lack of co- operation when it comes to briefings either of a general or specific kind by the members of the Authority with the Costigan Commission team. I think it unfortunate that Mr Sylvester and others who appear to have an axe of one kind or another to grind are contributing to public speculation of this kind. I am not aware of any correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister on the subject of the transition or of any recent correspondence from Mr Costigan to me -that is, apart from his letter transmitting to me the bulk of the material. That is a matter I shall check out to see what might be able to be done about it . I am speaking now as Attorney-General rather than in my capacity as the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. It may be that he as the Minister now in charge of the National Crime Authority has some correspondence bearing on this matter. I shall seek from him further information to see what other relevant correspondence there may be which it may be appropriate to put into the public domain. The transition, so far as I am aware, is working as smoothly as could be expected in a complicated matter of this kind. Senator COOK —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister had his attention drawn to the puny efforts of the Opposition, and in particular its economically illiterate leader, Mr Peacock, to beat up an issue out of taxation levels under the Hawke Labor Government? Can the Minister provide the Senate with details of tax levels under this Government, and tax levels under this Government in comparison with tax levels under the failed Fraser Government? Senator WALSH —Yes, Mr President; oddly enough, I can. The facts are that this year on the Budget estimates gross pay-as-you-earn tax will provide 46 1/2 per cent of total tax. In the last year of the Fraser Government gross PAYE tax provided 51 per cent of total tax. This year, excluding the Medicare levy, which of course is not a tax per se but a mechanism for the conversion of what was previously private expenditure into a Budget outlay, the total tax is 24.7 per cent of gross domestic product. In the last year of the Fraser-Howard regime- that is, Mr Howard's last Budget-it was 25 per cent, a higher proportion of GDP under the last Budget introduced by the discredited former Treasurer than it is under the latest Budget presented by the Labor Government. Senator Chaney —Why do you exclude the Medicare levy? That is thoroughly dishonest. Senator WALSH —I have already given the reason for excluding Medicare. That is not a tax per se, but a mechanism for converting what was previously private expenditure into a Budget outlay. I would have thought that Senator Chaney, who is one of the more intelligent members of the official Opposition, would have the capacity to understand that point. On the general question of taxation, the Opposition on that as well as so many other things does not seem to have got its act together. I have had my attention drawn to a statement made to the National Press Club by the discredited former Treasurer on 12 April this year. He said: 'That is, faced with a choice between reducing the deficit to a more acceptable level, or a tax cut, I believe it to be in the longer term economic interests of Australia that the deficit be reduced'. Four months ago the discredited former Treasurer, the present shadow Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party was saying that there should not be any tax cut at all. He was saying four months ago there should be no tax cuts and that the deficit should be reduced by a commensurate amount. That is an opinion with which some people may legitimately agree, but that same Opposition, through its official spokesman and discredited former financial representative in the Parliament, said that there should not be a tax cut but, instead, a reduction in the deficit. This Government did not accept that view. This Government chose to apply a significant tax cut of more than $2 billion in a full financial year, for a number of very good reasons which I do not propose to go into at this stage. The Government is now being condemned by the discredited former Government because the tax cut shoult have been bigger. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I take a point of order. It is contrary to the Standing Orders to be tediously repetitive and the phrases 'discredited former Treasurer' and 'discredited former Government' in the answer have now been used eight times as part of the Minister's answer. It is tedious repetition and should be disallowed. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. At the same time I would ask the Minister not to debate the answer. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. It may or may not be tedious, and I do not intend to pass judgment on that, but it is certainly embarrassing to the former Government. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. Immediately you directed the Minister not to debate the question, he rose and used words which can only be described as debating the question. I suggest that he is ignoring your ruling and that his attention should be called to your original ruling and he be told to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to restrict his remarks to giving an answer to the question, which, if one bears in mind the question that was asked, gives him a pretty wide frame. Senator WALSH —It was an excellently phrased question, if I may say so, Mr President. The real point is that the Opposition in this as in so many other areas does not seem to know what it is for and what it is against. Four months ago it was for no tax cuts at all but supported a reduction in the deficit in lieu of a tax cut. Now, if any credence at all is to be placed on any of the things the Opposition or its representatives say, the present Opposition believes that there should have been a larger tax cut than the Government decided upon. Some people might care to advance a legitimate argument for that as well, but the real point is that in this as in so many other areas the Opposition has not got its act together. It does not know what it is for or against. I was hoping that Senator Chaney or Senator Peter Rae might clarify the point and let us all know what the Opposition is for and what it is against rather than shifting and changing in accordance with the requirements of perceived political expediency. Senator Chaney —Mr President, the Minister addressed a question to me and I would like him to know that we are against the 8 per cent real increase in expenditure last year and we are against the 6 per cent increase in expenditure this year and the consequent high taxes. Senator COOK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister in his answer referred to the fact that there were several reasons why the Government would give a tax cut but declined to give any reasons. Would he please enumerate some reasons? The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that that is not a supplementary question. Senator SCOTT —I ask the Attorney-General whether any decision has yet been made as to whether Mr Justice Stewart should continue with his separate investigation of the Nugan Hand Bank or will this inquiry be taken over by the National Crime Authority? What stage has the Nugan Hand investigation reached, and when is a report expected? Is Mr Justice Stewart currently overseas in connection with the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Nugan Hand Group and will he have to be away again in the near future-including as long as a month-in the United States? If so, is the Attorney-General concerned that the work of the National Crime Authority may suffer because of the enforced absence of its chairman during the important early stages of the Authority's life? Senator GARETH EVANS —At the moment Mr Justice Stewart is engaged in three separate enterprises. One is in his capacity as chairman of the National Crime Authority. Of course, he is assisted in that respect by two other full time commissioners, Mr John Dwyer, QC, of the Melbourne Bar, and Mr Max Bingham, QC, former Tasmanian Attorney-General, who ought to be well known and respected by honourable senators opposite. To the extent that Mr Justice Stewart will be pre- occupied with other matters in the immediate future or the extent to which he has overseas trips to make-I am not sure of the details of those-one must nonetheless assume that the work of the Crime Authority in this important transitional stage will be proceeding apace. The second task Mr Justice Stewart has is in his capacity as continuing to hold a commission on the basis of letters patent given to him back in 1981 as the royal commissioner on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, which is the Mr Asia or Terrence Clark affair. It is in that capacity of course that the so-called Age tapes were referred to Mr Justice Stewart some time ago. It is in that capacity that Mr Temby has recommended in his report, tabled this week, that Mr Justice Stewart pursue certain further matters, including the provenance of the tapes and the substantive content of them insofar as they affect matters related to the Royal Commission. Mr Justice Stewart undoubtedly will be giving priority to that task in the immediate future. In that respect I correct a complete misapprehension in the Age editorial this morning which is full of misapprehensions of various kinds, but in particular to the effect that Mr Justice Stewart shortly is about to wind up his royal commissionership. Senator Chaney —Read it. Go away and read it. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Chaney. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I am endeavouring to inform the Senate. I am not prepared to tolerate the offensiveness of the Leader of the Opposition. I ask that you bring him to order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have already asked the Leader of the Opposition to restrain himself. Senator GARETH EVANS —I hope he will. I make it clear for the record that contrary to what was stated in the Age editorial this morning there is no question of Mr Justice Stewart imminently winding up the royal commissionership which is relevant to his further investigation of the Age tapes. The third capacity in which Mr Justice Stewart is presently acting is as the royal commissioner investigating the Nugan Hand affair. I am advised that that was intended to be completed by the end of this year and that in particular the local government part of the reference was close to completion. My most recent understanding is that that will now be delayed, perhaps by three months, as a result of the necessity to give priority attention to the other matters to which I have referred. However, at this stage there is no intention to absorb the Nugan Hand royal commission activity into that of the National Crime Authority. A separate team of lawyers and staff is working on the Nugan Hand matter. As I said, it is approaching completion in all relevant respects. A report can be expected to be to hand some time early next year. Senator RICHARDSON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the complaints of many Japanese companies and of the Japan Chamber of Commerce that they are experiencing considerable difficulties in obtaining visas for their senior Japanese business people posted to Australia ? Is the Minister aware that delays of up to several months have been occurring in the issuing of what should be routine visas? Given that the Government wishes to foster greater economic co-operation and greater trade between the two countries what actions has the Australian Immigration Department taken to ensure that these unnecessary delays and problems do not occur in the future? Senator GRIMES —I was aware that the Japan Chamber of Commerce in Sydney and in other places had made representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because of unnecessary delays as they saw them in providing visas that Senator Richardson mentioned. First of all I point out that although the Government realises-as I am sure all Australians realise-that many overseas companies want to have at least some home based overseas managers in those companies, we also have a responsibility to make sure that at the same time Australians are not unnecessarily being deprived of jobs in these circumstances. Therefore, part of the delays is due to the procedures which have already been laid down and which have been in existence for a long time. The second cause of delay is the inadequate information sometimes obtained from companies applying for visas. At the moment the Minister and the Government are looking at the guidelines and are having discussions with organisations such as the Japan Chamber of Commerce. We are awaiting replies on this matter. Of overseas managers employed in Australia something like 78 per cent are Japanese. Therefore, there is obviously a considerable number of such people coming into the country. The mere volume of applications adds to the problems created. However, the Minister and the Department are endeavouring, through negotiations with the Chamber of Commerce and by negotiation with our relevant authorities in Japan, to streamline the situation even more. However, I am sure that our friends from Japan realise that it is not just a matter of a simple visitor's visa in most cases. In fact, there are complications involved and we have our own interest to look after. But I am sure the situation will improve in the future. Senator PETER BAUME —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to her answer in the Senate yesterday that the new tertiary education assistance scheme and unemployment benefit provisions for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds represent a significant step forward for all young people. I ask the Minister whether she will accept figures provided to me by her Department which indicate that as at 30 June 1984 79 per cent of TEAS recipients were aged 18 years and over and that only 21 per cent were aged less than 18 years. Therefore, will the Minister acknowledge that the gap between unemployment benefit and TEAS-that is, the education disincentive gap-has increased by $9.62 for 79 per cent of students, that is, for four students out of five, since the Hawke Government came to office? Senator RYAN —I am perfectly happy to accept the accuracy of the figures provided to Senator Baume by my Department, namely, that 79 per cent of TEAS recipients are over 18 years. The point of what I was saying to Senator Baume yesterday was that the increase in TEAS means that for the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds there is now no effective gap between unemployment benefit available to them on the point of leaving school and TEAS. This is a very significant step because we are most concerned in the area of youth unemployment with those early school leavers -16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are mostly leaving without an adequate level of education to go on to successful higher education or training or to get a secure job. That group has the highest priority in an area that is generally a very high priority of the Government. I think Senator Baume will agree with me that the early school leavers are those who are most at risk in terms of their prospects of long term unemployment and have least likelihood of improving their capacity to get a secure job by way of further education and training. So, with regard to closing the gap, it seemed to us to be important to make our most significant step in the area of those who were most vulnerable. It is certainly true, as Senator Baume has pointed out, quoting figures from my Department so support his claim, that they are a minority of TEAS recipients, indeed, 21 per cent. Nonetheless they are a group who are most vulnerable and therefore are of most concern. We have given the 79 per cent of TEAS recipients who are 18 years of age and over a 10 per cent increase in the maximum allowance payable. It is true that there is still a gap between the single adult rate of unemployment benefit and the TEAS benefit. It is true that with regard to some students that gap may have a disincentive effect. We hope that other measures we are taking to improve access to higher education, to improve the number of places available and to improve the capacity of institutions to offer special bridging courses and other special courses to assist young people who are less prepared to undertake education, will overcome that. Obviously, as Senator Baume suggests, a gap remains. However, I believe it is important that, at a time of very stringent budgetary pressures, we have been able to increase TEAS by 10 per cent. It is an increase which has been welcomed. I hope that we will be able to continue making increases in TEAS so that that gap does not provide a disincentive to any individual student. However, I put the Senate on notice that the Government has the intention of achieving a much more fundamental overhaul of the area of youth income support. We do not think the method of simply raising individual benefits by as much as we can afford will overcome all the anomalies that exist in the youth income support area. When we are in a position to publicise the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on youth policy and youth income support policies we hope that there will be an informed public debate to complement the work that has been done in my Department and in the department of Senator Don Grimes on new, fresh and more equitable approaches to the area of youth income support generally. Senator PETER BAUME —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Ryan did not answer the last part of my question. Will she acknowledge that the gap which we were talking about has in fact widened for 79 per cent of students receiving TEAS since the Hawke Government came to office? Senator RYAN —The gap certainly did not widen in the last Budget. It was reduced somewhat-not as much as might be ultimately desirable, but it was certainly reduced-in the last Budget. Senator COLEMAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that the Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia specifically excludes private hospitals from participating in pharmaceutical insurance schemes? As this disadvantages members of those funds, will the Minister advise whether this is a usual practice of private health insurance funds? Does it apply only in Western Australia? Is the Hospital Benefits Fund the only fund which exercises that control? Senator GRIMES —I was not aware that the Hospital Benefits Fund of Western Australia specifically excluded private hospitals from participation in its pharmaceutical insurance scheme. I am not aware of the specific details of schemes offered by other private health funds in other States. I can say, however, that the Commonwealth Government does exercise control over the private health funds, but as far as I know those controls relate only to the payment of the basic hospital table benefits. Honourable senators will be aware that the controls over the private funds were relaxed when Medicare was introduced. The funds were encouraged to diversify their activities and to offer a wider range of services and benefits. The pharmaceutical insurance scheme referred to by Senator Coleman would be part of the health benefit funds' ancillary benefits package and would not normally come under the direct scrutiny or control of the Commonwealth. Because the Commonwealth regulates basic table benefits and requires all funds to offer the same benefits, the health funds normally use their ancillary benefits as part of their marketing strategy to give them a competitive advantage over other funds. Therefore, it is likely that almost all ancillary tables will be slightly different, offering different types of services, different levels of benefit and benefits for different numbers of services for different lengths of time. The Commonwealth normally ensures that the marketing material put out by the health funds fairly represents the range of benefits and limitations of those benefits in the ancillary tables, so people who took out the health benefit fund 's ancillary table should have been aware that private hospital pharmaceuticals were specifically excluded from benefits. I might add, the cost of those ancillary benefits can also be a fair indicator of the range of benefits and their limitations. I am sure that honourable senators and others would appreciate that a very low-cost ancillary package would probably have more severe limitations on its benefits than one that cost considerably more. I will find out from the Minister for Health what other funds offer in the way of ancillary benefits and what limitations they place on those benefits and will advise the Senate as soon as I get that information. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer the Minister to Budget Paper No. 5 and ask whether he can explain why export inspection receipts will rise next year by 211 per cent. Since the amount to be paid by producers will increase from some $ 20m to over $63m, can the Minister explain why producers are also being asked to pay for 232 more executives in the Export Inspection Service at the same time as there is to be a drop of 32 inspectors who actually do the work? Senator WALSH —I have not seen in the Budget Papers the reference to which Senator Macklin refers, so this must be taken as a provisional answer. I think the answer is because the collection of receipts due last year-that is, export inspection charges imposed on the industry-was delayed because of, among other things, the opportunistic actions of members of the official Opposition and the Australian Democrats in the Senate who deferred a purely technical Bill which had no contemporary relevance because they wanted to do a bit of political grandstanding out there in the electorate among people who were not fully aware of the facts. I think that is why there has been a big increase in the estimated receipts for this year. It is virtually 1 1/2 years' receipts collected as against half a year's receipts, for the reasons that I have given. That is because some people have resisted paying the levy which was due last year, encouraged by irresponsible senators in this place. I am not at all familiar with the matter raised in the second part of the question. I will have to refer it to the Minister for Primary Industry for reply. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I note that the unemployment figures released in July showed unemployment to be at 8.8 per cent, the lowest level since December 1982. In large part the fall can be attributed to the quarter of a million jobs plus created since March-April 1983. While the Government can take some credit and considerable heart from the significant improvement, the figure remains unacceptably high and a matter of considerable concern for the Government. I ask the Minister to comment on the further outlook for unemployment in this country. Senator BUTTON —I will try. I am very cautious about doing that. First of all there have been significant developments of the kind Senator Crowley referred to in the labour market since this Government came to office. Between April 1983 and July 1984 total employment increased by 260,000. I make the point-I suppose because of the origin of the question-that women comprised 135,000 of that increase in employment or 48 per cent of the total. The total number of new jobs created by the end of this financial year is expected to be about 400,000 or about 80 per cent of the target set by the Government for achievement in the context of the 1983 election campaign in our first three years in office. Senator Crichton-Browne —How many in the private sector? Senator BUTTON —Senator Crichton-Browne will have the opportunity to ask his question later, I have no doubt. Senator Lewis —Could you not make a statement after Question Time? Senator BUTTON —Unpalatable as the answer may be to Senator Lewis, the unemployment rate has declined by 1.8 per cent since the Government came to office last year. I make the point that any government cannot be complacent about unemployment of the levels which we have in Australia, improved considerably as they are. Unemployment is still unacceptably high. With the constant changes which are taking place in the pattern of the Australian economy there will be no easy solution to these problems. We can be somewhat optimistic about the future but there is a need for caution in assessing likely improvements. I think prospects for continued improvement in employment hinge importantly on the interaction between employment growth and increases in the participation rate as the hidden unemployed are encouraged by signs of recovery to look for work. Honourable senators will recall-I think it was earlier this year or late last year-that there was a marked decline in the participation rate. Maybe, in a sense, this was a statistical phenomenon, but it was a matter of concern. The rate of overall economic growth is crucial to achieving a sustained improvement in employment. The Government expects employment growth in the coming year of about 2.5 per cent of 160,000 people added to those who have already resumed employment. That would reflect a forecast growth in non-farm gross product of 4.5 per cent during the year. If the participation rate shows only a modest increase, the unemployment rate could be expected to decline by about one percentage point between the June quarter of 1984 and the June quarter of 1985. If that happens the Government would, of course, be pleased, and I am sure all honourable senators would be pleased, but none of us should be satisfied. In this Budget the Government has given emphasis to a recognition of the continued problems of the long term unemployed, particularly young people and women, seeking access to the labour market. In a number of respects the Budget was designed to address these issues squarely. For example, the expenditure on labour market programs and services is up by 10 per cent to a record $846m. Overall there has been a 146 per cent increase in expenditure on those programs since the years of the Fraser Government. Similar treatment has been accorded to the community employment program, and a number of substantial increases have been made in a variety of training support programs. One could go through a number of matters in the Budget which try to address these issues of the longer term unemployed, particularly amongst young people, women and those adults who have been in the long term unemployed category for some period. I said at the outset that if the Government and this country can continue to make steady progress in respect of unemployment levels I think we have every reason to be satisfied but not complacent. It is an issue of constant and continuous concern to the Government and one which will continue to be addressed . Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that with one of his rushes of blood to the head he proposed recently that George Negus and the 60 Minutes team should be allowed to enter the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and film a documentary on ASIO activities to 'demythologise' them? It is one of the Evans-type words which have about seven syllables. No doubt he will correct me. Did the Attorney- General give any consideration at all to the risks that identification of ASIO officers would have on the officers themselves and their families, or indeed on their ability to carry out their duties after identification? Will the Attorney- General tell the people of this nation whether it is his intention to allow ASIO to continue to serve this nation, or is it his intention to attempt to sabotage it by devious means such as those used by his idolised predecessor and mentor, Attorney-General Murphy? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a fact that George Negus contacted me and subsequently wrote to me suggesting that he make a 60 Minutes program on ASIO. It is and was my view that subject to the requirements of security it was desirable that ASIO be demystified, a word with four syllables, or demythologised, a word with five syllables; that its staff be shown as a representative cross-section of the Australian community to the extent that it is possible to do that without identifying them; and that the organisation be presented as a responsible and efficient agency of government. With those thoughts in mind I approached the Director-General, Mr Barnett, to seek his views and those of the organisation on the practicability of the proposal by Mr Negus. After appropriate consultation with members of the organisation Mr Barnett advised me that, although he had some sympathy for the concept lying behind the idea of some sort of television documentary program, the proposal was impractical for a variety of reasons which he set out and which we discussed. I certainly entirely accept the reasons advanced by Mr Barnett for that conclusion . Senator SIBRAA —I ask whether the Minister representing the Minister for Health is aware of a petition presented by Senator Boswell, as recorded at page 5 of Senate Hansard of 21 August, which states in part: 1. That a Bill of Rights be not introduced which: (a) does not provide for the protection of life before death as well as after or (b) if introduced it makes provision for the protection of life before death or after death. What medical advances have been made that give the Parliament control over life after death? Senator GRIMES —I will try to answer the question. I, like many senators, saw the petition in Hansard and was rather interested in it. Senator Walters —Careful, Senator Grimes. Senator GRIMES —I am reminded of the words of a former Minister in the House of Representatives, Mr Daly, who said that he did not believe in life after death until he came to the Senate one night. I think Senator Walters has given evidence of that. I do not know of any medical advances which would enable us to legislate in this way. I am pretty sure that the President would agree with me that despite some of the speeches that Senator Walters and Senator Harradine have made in this place, this Parliament has no power to legislate to protect life after death. As I have said, I do not believe that we have any power; I do not know that any medical advances have been made. It may be that the well-known tendency of the National Party of Australia to encourage people to vote after their death may have something to do with the petition that has been presented by Senator Boswell. I suppose another explanation is that there has been a mistake in the printing. I cannot add anything further than that. Senator WATSON —Is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs not concerned that at present there are no provisions under the veterans' affairs Act for the continued payment of a single pension for the widow of a deceased serviceman? Is not the Minister unhappy that the present arrangements for transfer of pension forms imposes an unnecessary burden on such people at a time of bereavement? When will the Minister investigate this anomalous position regarding widows of service pensioners and move to alter it? Further, will the assets test be exactly the same for aged and service pensioners when we have seen similar, but not necessarily identical, wording? Senator GIETZELT —I think I will have to take that question on notice. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, refers to the personal income tax cuts announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech this week. Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the objectives of those tax cuts and the benefits the Government expects to follow from them? Senator WALSH —There is a very long list of reasons for, and anticipated benefits from, the tax cuts. I do not propose to canvass them all but there are at least three which stand out very clearly. The first, and I think most important, is that it had been a longstanding part of the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In the judgment of the Government-I believe a judgment shared by many people outside the Government including, I suspect, a number of members of the Opposition, if their private opinions could be given-tax cuts of the magnitude which have been given and targeted at the income groups at which they have been targeted virtually guarantee that the wages policy will be honoured in its entirety for the next 12 months. Because of the Medicare effect on the consumer price index and the agreement with the ACTU that wage increases in compensation for the Medicare effect will not be sought, it follows that there will be almost no increase in wages because of indexation when the October or November case comes up, nor will there be any increases of any consequence in April next year. In other words, there will be a full 12 months with virtually no increase in money wages, which obviously will lead to further significant falls in the consumer price index, and in the implicit price deflator. In other words, in the judgment of the Government, it is crucial for the continuation of the amazing economic recovery which has taken place in this country since the discredited former Government was ignominiously removed from office about 18 months ago that the wages policy be maintained and that the tax cuts of the magnitude and type which were provided secure the maintenance of the wages policy. It will also, of course, for much more conventional reasons, provide a stimulus to consumer spending. Although the most recent evidence available clearly shows that consumer confidence is at the highest level it has been for, I think, a decade, further stimulus in consumer spending will obviously add to total demand and, therefore, to growth and employment. The cuts, targeted in the way that they have been targeted, also provide a significant redistributive element; that is, in percentage terms the lower one goes down the taxable income scale the higher the percentage tax reduction and the higher one goes up the income scale, and especially as one enters the top 10 per cent, the tax cuts, as a proportion, fall away to extremely low levels. The tax cuts which were announced have performed all those three roles. In summary, again, it will assist very heavily in the maintenance of the incomes accord to stimulate consumer demand and, to some degree, restore to the taxation system the equity and fairness which were eroded under the discredited former Government by both discrete changes to the taxation schedule and, even more importantly probably, by its toleration of massive tax evasion and avoidance. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday, Senator Robert Ray asked me a question about a statement by a Minister in the Malaysian Government. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full text of an answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- Senator Evans —On 22 August Senator Ray asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, without notice: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements by the Minister for Information in the Malaysian Government wherein he stated that the Malaysian Government was against the screening, portrayal or musical presentation of works of Jewish origin? Will the Minister take action to indicate to the Malaysian Government our abhorrence of the anti-semitic statement by that Government? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of a statement by Malaysia's Minister for Information that the Malaysian Government would not encourage any screening, portrayal or musical presentation of Jewish origin in the country. The statement referred to a work of music entitled 'Schelomo-a Hebrew Rhapsody', which the New York Philharmonic Orchestra had intended to include in its program during a tour of Malaysia. Other items in the intended program by Jewish composers had not led to any Malaysian objections. According to advice from the Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, the Malaysian Minister for Information has subsequently stated by way of clarification, that he had only been giving his initial views and that he had in any case been speaking not as a Government Minister, but in his capacity as chairman of a semi-government drug rehabilitation organisation, which was a co-sponsor of the orchestra's visit. I understand that Malaysian Deputy Foreign Minister Kadir Sheikh Fadzir has also pointed out publicly, in relation to this incident, that freedom of worship is guaranteed in Malaysia. The Malaysian Government has rejected, in the past, any suggestion that it is anti-semitic. The fact is that musical works by Jewish composers are regularly performed in Malaysia, including by Malaysian orchestras. Indeed excerpts from 'Fiddler on the Roof' were performed by a Malaysian orchestra during a visit to Malaysia by the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Senator BUTTON —On 21 August Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me a question about Mr Justice Alley's letter in relation to the building industry. I am able to supply a supplementary comment to what I said the other day. I am advised that Mr Justice Alley's letter did in fact arise from concern within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the main building industry awards are not being maintained as true paid rates awards. This concern was expressed by the national wage case Full Bench in its decision of the 23 September 1983 and again in a decision on 13 June 1984 when the national wage increase of 4.1 per cent was granted to building awards. I understand that building unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are meeting today to consider their position and, likewise, employers are to meet next week. The Government considers that the parties should closely consider whether a change to the current arrangements for paid rates awards is warranted, or what changes to current practices are required to restore the awards to true paid rates awards. If conversion to minimum rates awards is to occur, negotiations on overaward payments and site allowances during the transition period, but also beyond, must be consistent with the commitments by building unions not to pursue extra claims outside the principles during the life of the current indexation system. The Government will consider its position in the light of these meetings and notes that the matter has been listed for hearing on 10 September, 1984. I recall that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me when the Government would make clear its position. We are watching those conferences. The date 10 September seems to be the date on which we would respond. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to a question without notice asked by Senator Crowley this day relating to unemployment. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to a question without notice asked by Senator Foreman this day relating to tax cuts. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Taxation Levels Taxation Levels Taxation Levels Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cook this day relating to the income tax levels. I would like to make a few remarks about the answer. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, partially quoted what the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, Mr Howard, said. The Minister quoted in a way which was quite misleading and in a way in which Senator Walsh is an expert. He is really the Minister for sleaze rather than the Minister for anything else in the chamber. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should withdraw that remark. Sentor CHANEY-I withdraw that remark. In response to Senator Cook's question, Senator Walsh made reference, in part, to a statement of Mr Howard which, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is close to being accurate but is a partial statement. Senator Walsh quoted as follows: . . . that is, faced with a choice between reducing the deficit to a more acceptable level or a tax cut, I believe it could be in the longer term economic interests of Australia that the deficit be reduced. The Minister went on to debate that statement and referred to Mr Howard in derogatory terms. There was no excuse for what he did because exactly the same technique was used in the House of Representatives yesterday. I am a little disappointed that Senator Walsh should merely meekly follow something that was done in the House of Representatives yesterday. As Mr Howard was able to make a personal explanation in the House of Representatives but is not able to do so here, I thought I should take this occasion to point out what Mr Howard said in his personal explanation in response to the point which has been made by the Treasurer, Mr Keating. Mr Howard said, and I quote in part: It is true, as one of those honourable gentlemen said at Question Time, that at one stage of that interview I said that faced with a choice between a taxation cut and a reduction in the deficit, in straight economic terms my preference was for a reduction in the deficit. Thus far, the quotation of the honourable gentlemen was okay. What he quite deliberately did not do, and therefore misrepresented my position, was to acknowledge the fact that what the Government should do was provide room for the tax cut out of further reductions in expenditure. I quote from the answer that I gave then-- this is the quote- If you are asking me from an economic point of view what is the better thing to do quite clearly the better thing to do is to give a greater priority to reducing the deficit. This is the portion of the quote omitted both by Mr Keating and his follower, Senator Walsh: If the Government wishes on top of that to give taxation cuts, then it should cut further into its own expenditure to find the room. Mr President, in response to the challenge that Senator Walsh issued to the Opposition I rose and perhaps in a disorderly way made the point that one of the differences between the Government and us is that we had exercised some reasonable restraint on government expenditure and the present Government has distinguished itself by increasing government expenditure in real terms by 8 per cent in its first year in government, give or take one or two decimal points. In the second Budget it is somewhere around 6 per cent. The Government has managed to pile on about $15,000m worth of deficit in only two years and yet it has criticised the Fraser Government for having deficits totalling some $17,000m in seven years. Mr President, in the usual way, Question Time has been abused by Senator Walsh. He has chosen to use Question Time to waste time, to debate matters and to partially quote Opposition members. Quite frankly, the Opposition is sick of it. I have moved these motions today because I think quite often Question Time is used as a means of giving lengthy statements, of depriving the Opposition of the appropriate use of Question Time. If that is to be the case, we will use the forms of this place to ensure that we get a chance to respond to the debating points which are made by Ministers during Question Time. On this occasion, I obtained the leave of the Senate to move these motions. I acknowledge that and I therefore have no wish to abuse the privilege that I have been given by making a lengthy speech. As I say, I do acknowledge having received leave. I regret that Senator Walsh chose to repeat the transgression of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, in the other place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjournd. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-The first observation that one could make, I suppose, would be that the former Treasurer has said, in effect, that if he were in government he would pursue a policy that he believes is not economically responsible and that he would, in fact, reduce taxes instead of reducing the deficit. At least that is my interpretation of what Senator Chaney has said. But, more importantly, rather than giving this facile and irresponsible excuse, which is typical of members of the Opposition, that they would solve all deficit problems by reducing expenditure, I challenge them to detail the areas in which they would reduce expenditure. I also invite them to explain how they would reduce the deficit while simultaneously honouring all these commitments given by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in the last few weeks. He says, amongst other things, that he will scrap this Government's superannuation tax arrangements, thereby losing revenue and increasing the deficit. He said he will oppose the reintroduction of an income test for the over-70s, thereby increasing expenditure. He will oppose an assets test, thereby increasing expenditure and increasing the deficit. He attacked the Government for removing the inequitable subsidy for wealthy home buyers which was an across the board interest rate subsidy, thereby reducing revenues and increasing the deficit. He promises to increase the investment allowance to 20 per cent, thereby reducing tax revenues and increasing the deficit. He promises to reintroduce a tax rebate for dividends, presumably exemption of the first $1, 000m for dividend income from personal income tax at a cost of about $100m a year; reductions in revenue and increases in the deficit. He promises to recreate a bicentennial water resources program presumably to grovel before the cargo cultists, again increasing expenditure and the deficit. He promises to build a railway to Darwin, about a $600m over a two-year or three-year period increase in expenditure and increase in the deficit, other things being equal. He promises to abolish the new wine tax at a cost to revenue of at least $60m, thereby increasing the deficit by that order of magnitude. He promises to abolish the new oil levy, thereby reducing revenue and increasing the expenditure by the order of $300m. I invite the Opposition to explain away all those contradictions. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-In the question asked by Senator Sibraa today I feel that he implied that I had some input into the wording of a petition. It is my understanding that, as a senator, I represent the people of Queensland and that I am to present petitions in a way that the people want them worded to this House. I did that and I feel that I fulfilled my position as a Queensland senator. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The imposition by the Hawke Labor Government of a tax on wine and the disastrous impact such a tax will have on the Australian wine industry. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.15) —The matter of public importance today is as follows: The imposition by the Hawke Labor Government of a tax on wine and the disastrous impact such a tax will have on the Australian wine industry. The arrogance of the Hawke Labor Government is nothing short of amazing. It has become manifest and clear to the public of Australia in the decision to impose a tax on the wine industry. It is also nothing short of amazing that South Australian Labor senators have not seen fit to take part in this debate, except for Senator Elstob who will speak later. It is highly significant that Senator Elstob will take part in this debate because he is the only senator on the Government side who has a clean record on this matter. He has been put up as the shield for the four Labor South Australian senators who know that they will have to crawl back to their mouseholes in South Australia and disappear into the woodwork as a result of this decision. Senator Elstob made his position quite clear on 20 October 1983. I suppose we can point the finger at him and accuse him of having given the idea to the Government. On page 1874 of the Senate Hansard he is recorded as saying: I believe that the industry- he is talking about the wine industry- would be well advised to accept some form of tax such as a sales tax. What happens? In the first Budget after he had stated those words there is a sales tax on wine. Senator Walsh —He is very influential. Senator MESSNER —This is from a South Australian senator who obviously, as Senator Walsh acknowledges, is extremely knowledgeable and influential in the Labor Caucus. As I understand it, from his position of leadership of the Labor Party Senate team from South Australia, he would have a vast amount of influence with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). As I said, Senator Elstob is clean on this matter and has been put up by the Labor Party to justify his own position probably but, more importantly, to shield from public opinion his four Labor Party colleagues who have not got the guts to stand up in this place and defend the Government's decision, which they know will destroy vast sections of the wine industry in South Australia. If Senator Geoff McLaren were still in this place-we all remember his real interests in the problems of South Australia-he would be on his feet crying out loudly about the problems that this tax will create in the Riverland of South Australia, but there is not a peep out of the Government senators. With the exception of Senator Foreman, they are not even willing to come into the Senate chamber to hear this debate. They will not face up to their responsibilities to the electors of South Australia. Clearly, they are going to find themselves in desperate trouble when the Senate election comes around, which we are promised will not be too far away . Senator Jessop —They are discredited. Senator MESSNER —As my colleague Senator Jessop reminds me, they are totally discredited already on this issue. Not only is Senator Elstob, who now takes the chair rather cleverly, in a position of being criticised on this matter, we also have Senator Crowley, who, upon the introduction of the Government's former infamous tax on grape spirit brought down in the Budget last year, denied Opposition senators the right to raise this question in this chamber by refusing leave for us to debate that matter. I am sure that Opposition senators-Senator Jessop in particular is nodding his head-agree that Government senators, Labor Party senators, will not face up to their responsibilities. It will be interesting to see what transpires later when the Labor Party senators come to their preselections. Yesterday in Adelaide, in the House of Assembly of the South Australian Parliament, the Labor Premier of South Australia, the Honourable John Bannon-I quote from the Hansard report of the wine industry debate yesterday-said that this wine tax: . . . will . . . have a disastrous effect on the growth of a key South Australian industry, but will . . . disadvantage regional economies within the State and particularly hinder the redevelopment and reconstruction programme which the South Australian Government has initiated in the Riverland. Mr Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to that matter because it may be your preselection which is at stake, since the Premier is obviously ill- disposed towards the actions of Labor Party senators in not standing up for the State of South Australia on this matter. Let us just consider for a moment the words of the Premier. He talked about the Riverland and the regional effects of this wine tax. That, of course, is the most disastrous effect of this new tax. It is true that members of the Labor Party at the Federal level have always regarded the wine industry as some kind of Mickey Mouse industry. They have never really taken it seriously. This emanated from the leadership this afternoon during Question Time, when even the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Grimes, referred to the wine industry in the most disparaging of terms and claimed that those people who were opposing the wine tax were somehow supporting tax evasion. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. The references by other Labor Ministers on this matter obviously indicate their shortness of sight on this matter. I return to the question of the Riverland. The Riverland, as honourable senators know, has been developed over 100 years or so through the irrigation techniques developed in the later part of the nineteenth century. The grape industry has become a vital part of that area. We know how important it is to South Australia's economy. The fruit growing industries, the grape growing industries along the River Murray have tied with them, most importantly, the tourism industry, which is also vital to South Australia's economy. The wine tax will impose enormous hardship on the people of the Riverland. The people in the grape growing industries in the Riverland have small plots, small blocks of land on which to grow their vines and produce their grapes, which very largely are sold to co-operative wineries in the area-not to great combines of proprietary interest owned by overseas people but, of course, to representatives of the growers in the districts. These small growers will find under the impact of this tax that they will not be able to sell 65,000 tonnes of grapes in the forthcoming vintage in March of next year. Something like 10 per cent of their total vintage will hang on the vines and rot. Not only will the effect be felt by the grape grower himself, which obviously will cause him financial problems but also it will obviously lead in many cases to growers being forced off their properties and consequently, quite possibly, on to the unemployment benefit. Can somebody in the Government please explain to me how that will benefit the nation and, in particular, South Australia? Let us consider the other impacts upon the wine makers, those whose job it is right across the country to produce, package and sell the wine. All of those people will be significantly affected. In fact, the wine industry itself has said that the impact in the longer term as a result of the introduction of this tax will be a decline of 13 1/2 per cent of its total market. That means a reduction of a proportionate amount in the value added, the amount of money that flows to South Australia. That means that everybody in the State ultimately will be affected by this fall in the sales and production of wine in South Australia. That is the impact it will have. Obviously it will depress the economy. It is as though the Government picked out South Australia for mistreatment in this Budget . Obviously we have not delivered enough Labor Party seats to the Federal Parliament and now the Government has given up hope and wants to go back to the old steps and perhaps restore a few Liberals back in the State. That is now almost guaranteed in the next Senate election. The Liberal Party will secure an extra Senate seat as a result. Let us have some regard to some of the promises that the Labor Party made on this matter. Can we think back to those halcyon days before the election in March 1983? Do we remember what the Prime Minister whose office is in the corner of this building said in Griffith on 20 February 1983? The newly elected then Leader of the Opposition said: The wine industry is beset with problems. The industry is faced with the need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability, if the industry is to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. Then he went on to say: Labor is pledged- I emphasise the word 'pledged'- not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. If that is how much we can believe this Prime Minister, we cannot have much faith in any other of his promises. Later, at a meeting in McLarenvale south of Adelaide in the Southern Vales wine growing area, the now Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, in the company of Mr Gordon Bilney the now Labor member for Kingston said: Industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. If the result of all of this is contemplation we wonder what will be the reality when the Government finally gets around to doing something about a wine tax. I mentioned that this was said in the company of the now honourable member for Kingston, Mr Gordon Bilney, who had the temerity in public yesterday, as quoted in today's edition of the Sydney Morning Herald, to make the following remark upon the impact of the wine tax on South Australia. The article stated: The Labor Member for Kingston, Mr Gordon Bilney, said yesterday he was surprised that the tax was imposed this year, but he regarded such a tax as inevitable. He regarded it as inevitable! How is it that he regarded it as inevitable when his Prime Minister and his now Minister for Primary Industry in the course of the election campaign were pledging that there would be no wine tax? By what twisted logic and tautology of language can he suddenly transfer that pledge into an understanding that there would be a wine tax? Because we have seen so many broken promises in the last 18 months I can understand how members of the Labor Party can change their opinion at a moment's notice. But for this statement to emanate from an honourable member who relies on the interests of the wine growers in his part of South Australia for support, for him to come out and claim that he knew this, means that he must have been lying to his community and lying to the wine growers of the Kingston area and the Southern Vales area of South Australia and misleading them as to the Government's intentions. As a result the honourable member deserves to be thrown out at the next election, and we shall ensure that he is. It is important to realise that not just South Australia is involved, although certainly 5,000 people are directly involved in the wine and brandy industry in that State. That represents roughly 40 per cent of the total work force in the wine and brandy production industry. For that reason we acknowledge that other parts of the Commonwealth are directly affected. There is the growing fledgling wine industry in Western Australia-Sentor Walsh's and Senator Cook's State. I wonder how those honourable senators will explain this wine tax to their constituents in Western Australia. Honourable members representing Labor-held seats such as in the New South Wales electorates of Calare and Hunter, which is represented by Mr Robert Brown, in the Victorian electorate of Bendigo which is represented by Mr Brumby, and in the Western Australian electorate of Moore, which is represented by Mr Blanchard, will have to explain to the people in their various electorates why they think a wine tax should be imposed. I should like to hear their explanations because, as I have just said, thousands of jobs are tied up in this issue. Senator Walsh —Utter rubbish. Senator MESSNER —There are 12,000 jobs throughout Australia directly tied up with the wine industry, as the Minister knows. Many more people rely on the wine industry through tourism, the sale of goods at retail level, restaurants and the hospitality industry. As the Minister knows, many thousands of people rely on wine for their income and their economic development. All of those elements will be placed at risk because of the very arrogant and ill-considered proposal which this wine tax represents. That is why the Liberal Party will oppose the wine tax tooth and nail. I shall finish my speech by once again explaining to people why a wine tax is so inimical to the interests of the wine industry. The Australian Labor Party certainly does not seem to be able to understand that reason. In the wine industry brandy production and wine production are very closely integrated. The fact is that it is some seven years, between the planting and the first picking of grapes, before a vineyard can be tested. Then, of course, the vineyard proceeds to the production of the wine. Some wine is put down for several years for maturation and, in the case of brandy, for many more years than that. A large cost is incurred all the time that this process is going on. The amount of money invested in the wine is building up. Finally, the wine and brandy is sold. Then and only then is profit realised from the produce. The grape and wine industry is highly integrated. It is dependent upon variations in the seasons in the same way as any other primary industry. Over the decades the industry has established a way of looking after itself by ensuring that surplus grapes in a good year are set aside and made into brandy or spirit. The wine spirit is then used in the production of fortified wine in not so good production years. In that way, local employment levels have been kept up. People have been kept off the unemployment benefit and local communities have been kept going. Other industries have been able to develop locally around those communities. For that reason we support the wine industry, particularly in South Australia. We have seen what has happened during the past 100 years in the development of our State as a direct result of the wine industry and the way in which that industry develops other industries around it. The wine industry is the catalyst for economic development in South Australia. We believe that this Government is out to destroy that industry. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.35) —I acknowledge the expertise of the Opposition in the area of unemployment, because in its last year of government the coalition managed to destroy as many jobs as this Government was able to create in its first year in office-that is, the Liberal-National Party Government destroyed a quarter of a million jobs and we have created a quarter of a million jobs. On the basis of that evidence, one must concede that the unemployment expertise of this Parliament is wrapped up inside the Liberal Party. One would not expect one particular point to occur to Senator Messner, but it is highly significant and is a major reason for the imposition of this tax. Several more responsible, commentators have said, correctly, as distinct from all the wild and unfounded allegations that have been thrown around, which I shall deal with shortly, that as a result of this tax there will be an increase of about 10c a litre in the price of cask wine and-one could choose a higher figure than this, depending on how prestigious the upper end of the bottle market is, but this is a figure I have seen published-80c a litre at the upper end of the bottle market. Those figures are reasonable estimates. It would not occur to someone like Senator Messner or any of his colleagues to think that it is highly equitable for people who buy cask wine, who by and large tend to be the lower income groups, to be taxed at a lower rate on their consumption than those people who can afford the very high prices of prestigious wines or who, via the restaurant trade, patronise the upper end of the market. This wine tax is a highly progressive tax. It will take a great deal more proportionately from the people who are able to pay for prestigious wines-that is, those whose incomes are sufficiently high to buy prestigious wines at $20 or $30 a bottle or, in very special cases, at even higher prices-than from the ordinary wine drinker who drinks mostly cask or, perhaps, flagon wine. This is a highly progressive tax. One would not expect a party so committed to inequality between individuals as the Liberal Party is to acknowledge or even recognise that this is a highly progressive tax and that it is highly defensible on those grounds. This will probably be the most progressive of all taxes, including income tax, in existence. Senator Messner —It is a proportional tax, and you know it. It is not a progressive tax at all. Senator WALSH —I thought that Senator Messner had some understanding of these matters, but apparently I overrated him as I did the Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Chaney). The effects on income distribution of this measure will, without question, be highly progressive. There are a number of other good reasons for this tax, one of which is in the resource allocation area. The existing beer excise is equivalent, in round figures, to an 80 per cent sales tax. It is widely believed-I acknowledge that this is a belief that I have always shared-that it is indefensible to impose that sort of slug on beer drinkers while totally exempting from taxation people who choose to take their alcohol in some other form. One could say with great- indeed unanswerable-justification that the trouble with Senator Messner, Senator Jessop and Senator Teague is that they hate beer drinkers. All the Liberal and Country Party members hate beer drinkers. Senator Cook —Silvertails. Senator WALSH —Yes, silvertails. Perhaps their silvertail background explains why they hate beer drinkers. Existing sales tax arrangements impose a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks, including soda water. Does Senator Messner seriously argue that it is inequitable to impose some tax on an alcoholic beverage- normally taxed in this country under Liberal and Labor governments at extremely high rates-to impose no tax at all on a particular type of alcoholic beverage, and to impose a 20 per cent sales tax on soda water? If that is the belief of members of the Opposition, that as well as hating beer drinkers they believe that people who drink soda water should pay a 20 per cent sales tax, but that people who drink wine-at whatever level of the market, whatever level of price, prestige, snob value or whatever else goes with it-should pay no tax at all, I hope that they will say so. The assertions that have been made about the effects of this tax are inaccurate conceptually and arithmetically. Firstly, the Opposition has not made clear whether it believes that this tax of 10 per cent, imposed at wholesale level and not at retail level, will be paid by the consumers, that is, entirely added on to price; or by the producers, that is, subtracted from price. Normally, when a tax of this type is imposed its consequences are distributed between both producers and consumers. In this case, given that there is no close substitute for bulk wine, which comprises the majority of wine produced and sold in Australia, the probability is that the tax will be passed on to the consumer almost entirely. In those circumstances, it will have no effect on the price received by producers. Senator Teague —Why is every member of the Western Australian Parliament so up in arms? Senator WALSH —Even if the Western Australian Parliament does not like it, I am sure that that Parliament and every other parliament will have its hands out in a year's time to collect 20 per cent of the revenue which comes from this tax, as the States in total will do. Perhaps also, Senator Teague-I suppose it is barely conceivable-the Liberal Party does not have a monopoly on economic illiteracy. In these circumstances, where because there is no close substitute the tax will almost entirely, if not entirely, be passed on to consumers, there can be no reduction in prices received by producers. The only way, therefore, in which producers could lose from the imposition of this tax would be if it affected the volume of sales. Estimates have been thrown around, and repeated by Senator Messner, that sales will decline by as much as 14 per cent because of a 10 per cent sales tax imposed at wholesale level, and, for reasons that I shall explain later, the increase in price at retail level will be something lower than 10 per cent. It is possible that there could be some effect on consumption. The 14 per cent decline figure is based on, I believe-although Senator Messner did not cite it- estimates made by Tsolakis, on data from 1955 to 1979. All such estimates of demand elasticity are, of course, fallible. In this case those estimates are likely to be particularly fallible because for most of the period under review wine, particularly table wine, was not established on the Australian market as a mass consumed drink. As to more recent estimates, I cite, for example, Clements' 'Taxation of Alcohol in Australia' in Taxation Issues of the 1980s, published by the Australian Tax Research Foundation in 1983. He estimates that the likely effect on consumption of a 10 per cent sales tax would be a 3 per cent decline in consumption. The highest possible defensible estimate in Clements' view was a 4 per cent decline in consumption, which, incidentally, is less than the industry's present and 10-year growth rate. As I said before, all such estimates are fallible. However, we have some empirical evidence of the effects on consumption of a tax of this magnitude. Last year the Victorian Government imposed a tax-it was not a simple sales tax but a complicated arrangement-but its effects on prices were comparable with the effect of a 10 per cent sales tax applied, as our sales taxes are always applied in this country, at wholesale levels. There is no evidence that that sales tax imposed in Victoria had any effect on consumption at all. A figure of 14 per cent for a decline in consumption is beyond the bounds of credibility. Such elasticities are feasible only when a close substitute exists. I invite all members of the Opposition to nominate the close substitute, as an alcoholic drink, for cask wine at $4 for 4 litres or, in some cases, even less than $4. The only alcoholic substitute is beer, which, for the same alcoholic content, costs about $12. If one moves into spirits, the equivalent alcohol level is probably even higher. But the nearest substitute product for wine is beer, and for alcohol equivalent levels it is three times the price. That is the underlying reason why more recent estimates of demand elasticity have suggested that consumption is quite unresponsive to price changes, and the actual empirical evidence from Victoria more than confirms those pre-existing estimates . Senator Withers —What about the Hawke pledge? Senator WALSH —I am glad that you reminded me of that, Senator Withers, because I wrote down what Senator Messner said. Senator Messner said 'In the halcyon days before March 1983', and he quoted from something that the Prime Minister said at the time. Sometimes I, too, look back with envy on those days of pristine innocence, before we discovered that the discredited former Treasurer was fibbing about the size of the deficit and the deplorable state in which he left the Australian economy. At the time, the present Prime Minister, in good faith, gave that undertaking. He, like all the rest of us-I suppose it is a considerable concession to acknowledge that we could ever have been so naive- believed that the former Treasurer was telling the truth about the state of the economy. Of course, when we came into government we found out differently. Our days of innocence were ended. We found out that instead of facing a $6 billion deficit, as the discredited former Treasurer had asserted, we were facing a $10 billion deficit. I do not mind stating that a number of people in the Government gave serious consideration to taking a measure along these lines last year. It was deferred principally because the industry was to be given some time to adjust itself, I suppose, to more realistic expectations. We did not do what the discredited former Government would have done. That Government would have slapped on a tax straight after the election. We have a lot more integrity than the former discredited Government, and we are doing what is the right thing prior to an election instead of afterwards. Senator Teague —You have no integrity at all. You gave a promise and you broke it. Senator WALSH —Senator Teague did not seem to have any trouble in this place for however long it is that he has been a member of it-however long that is, it is too long-in supporting and coping with the yard long list of broken promises which his former leader piled up. Senator Withers —That is no excuse for your being as bad. Senator WALSH —But I have just said that we are not nearly as bad. We are incalculably better. It has been said-I regret to say that it was said by someone who ought to have known better, and that is Mr Don McWilliam-that as a result of a 10 per cent sales tax at wholesale level there will be a 15 per cent increase in retail prices. I want to take the Senate through a little exercise here. Probably Opposition senators will not be able to follow it, but I am sure that Senator Cook and Senator Elstob will be able to do so. If we assume that there is normally a 20 per cent mark-up between wholesale and retail level in wine marketing-I suspect that it is probably somewhat higher than that, but it would strengthen my case if it is higher-the imposition of a 10 per cent sales tax will increase retail prices by about 8.5 per cent. Mr McWilliam apparently believed that there would be an increase in retail prices of 15 per cent. To accept that as a realistic estimate one must assume that wine retailers have sufficient market or monopoly power to increase prices at will, at least within the range of around 10 per cent of present levels. The question then arises that if retailers have that sort of market or monopoly power, why are they voluntarily withholding the exercise of that power now? Why did they not all increase their prices by 10 per cent yesterday since, for Mr McWilliam's conclusion to remain correct, they could have done that without affecting their sales volume? Senator Townley —Your arithmetic is wrong, too. Senator WALSH —I am sorry but it is not wrong. I shall give the honourable senator a note on it afterwards, if he wishes. I daresay I would not be able to explain it in terms that would be comprehensible to the honourable senator. Why, if that sort of market monopoly power exists in the retail sector now, it is not being utilised is, and no doubt I suspect will remain at the conclusion of this debate, a matter for wide-eyed conjecture. The Opposition has demonstrated yet again that it is bereft of any coherence or long term economic overview or strategy. Instead of a strategy or coherent policy, it practises sequential appeasement of pressure groups and the interests of pressure groups, however misconceived they may be. The plain and simple facts are that almost in its entirety this tax will be passed on to consumers, and in the eyes of believers in a progressive taxation system no more equitable tax exists. Because that tax will be passed on, it will have no effect on the prices received by producers. It may have some effect on the volume of sales. There is little doubt, however, that the effect on the volume of sales will be less than the normal rate of growth in the market. However minuscule that figure is, the Opposition asserts that it justifies the maintenance of a system of taxation which is irrational in resource allocation terms, regressive in income distributional terms and, above all, aimed straight at beer drinkers, reflecting the fact that all members of the Opposition who support this motion hate beer drinkers. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.54) —We have become accustomed to the tirades of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and his references to discredited Treasurers. I suggest that the Senate is now debating a matter that points clearly to the broken pledge of the discredited Hawke Government. I do not think the Minister has answered that criticism at all, nor did he refer to the Labor Party platform on agricultural policies enunciated by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in February 1983. In dealing with the wine industry, the Australian Labor Party policy was to the effect that the wine industry was beset with problems and was faced with the need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability if the industry was to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. However, the Labor Party document went on to state: 'Labor will not impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine'. However, as soon as the Labor Government came to power it decided to introduce a levy on fortified spirits. That had a considerable effect on the production of wine and brandy and meant that grape producers were unable to dispose of the quantity of grapes surplus to the wine industry's requirements in other areas. At Griffith the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said the same thing. He pointed to the difficulties experienced by the industry and pledged that he would not impose a sales tax on wine. The wine industry has been under attack by Labor governments for years. I recall that the Whitlam Government levied a brandy excise and removed section 31A of the provisions affecting the wine industry. That put wine producers in serious financial difficulty and some of them are still paying for that impost. Senator Walsh said that economic illiteracy was not confined to Liberals and referred to the Western Australian Parliament. In other words, he is saying that Mr Bannon, the Labor Premier of South Australia, and Mr Burke, the Labor Premier of Western Australia, are economic illiterates. I am sure that will not go down too well in South Australia. I wish to refer to comments made by Mr Allan Preece, President of the Australian Wine Grape-Growers Council, soon after the impost on wine was announced. The Australian reported that statement under the heading: 'Gloomy forecast for wine industry'. The article reads: The new sales tax on wine will result in some sections of the Australian wine industry disappearing, the President of the Australian Wine Grape-Growers Council, Mr Allan Preece, said yesterday. Mr Preece said the tax would force up to a third of the independent grape-growers in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia out of business. I believe that statement is true and that Labor Party senators representing South Australia failed our State in not pursuing the matter more aggressively. I believe the people of South Australia, the Riverland area in particular, the Barossa Valley and the south coast grape growing region will remember that in the election campaign which is not far down the track. They will demonstrate their view with their votes. They will also remember that Mr Bilney, the member for Kingston, said that a wine tax was inevitable. The Minister for Resources and Energy referred to papers presented by Mr Demitri Tsolakis of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, who made forecasts about the probable chain of events for a given tax on wine. Mathematical models put up in the past have been amazingly accurate. The report to which I refer says that such a tax will force a long term decline in wine sales, a price rise, according to Mr Tsolakis's assessment of about 15 per cent-which is what the 10 per cent impost will ultimately mean-and a forecast decrease in sales of 21 per cent. This means that in the long term wine makers will not be encouraged to buy more grapes and in fact, the eventual decrease in grapes bought will be about 21 per cent, reflecting the trend in sales. A 10 per cent sales tax on wine will automatically lead to a decrease of about 21 per cent in the grape crush of growers. Senator Messner said that the number of tonnes of grapes that would not be crushed is 65,000. My figure is about 80, 000 tonnes. However, between 65,000 tonnes and 80,000 tonnes of grapes will be left to hang on the vines to rot. This, in my opinion-and its substantiated by what Mr Allan Preece has said-will inevitably result in unemployment, and a downturn in the economy of the industry with a consequent significant loss of revenue to the Government. It seems to me that at today's average price if 80, 000 tonnes of grapes are to be left on the vine-the price today is about $170 per tonne-that would amount to about $13.6m taken out of the fragile economies of the grape growing areas of Australia. I think that even Mr Hawke will now be wondering why he turned his back on the pledge that he made last year in Griffith when he referred to the times of low profitability. This tax will make that situation even worse. The price of imported wines such as those from France, Italy and Portugal will remain steady because the mechanics of the impost on these wines has only been shuffled around. There is no increase in the total tax on imported wines-the Australian wines having been taxed 10 per cent relative to the imports. However, while the price of Australian wines has been pushed up by Government imposts- remembering that Australian wines are in the main already unprofitable-this tax is pushing consumers into the open arms of heavily subsidised, low quality imports. Some members of parliament, the media and some sections of the community have an erroneous picture of the typical Australian wine drinker. The Australian wine drinker is pictured as a silvertail who drinks expensive premium wine. However, the best selling wines which were listed recently in the Bulletin are all under the $5 a bottle bracket. I imagine that most wine in Australia consumed on the domestic market would be cask wine. In other words, the majority of bottle wine drinkers would be drinking low priced wines, not the $7, $10 or $15 a bottle wine. It is also a well-known fact that this range of consumers who account for the majority of wine sales have a palate which is in the label. These people will buy French wine because it is French and because it has a French label, not because of its quality. They are buying an inferior wine. This budgetary measure will encourage more of the cheaper French wines to be consumed. I recall when in Europe last year, drinking a very poor and cheap bottle of French wine which someone referred to as Chateau Vespasienne. Anyone who understands French will know what I mean. The point is that the quality of cheap imported wines is immaterial to the average Australian drinker. As a matter of fact I rang a certain retailer today to discover how cheap these French wines are. I discovered that a bottle of French wine can be bought for about $3.99. I am also aware that some of these retailers have strongly advocated a tax on Australian wines. I would be surprised if some Australian winemakers did not refuse to use these particular retail outlets for their wine considering that they successfully advocated a tax on Australian wines, knowing full well the damage it would do to the Australian industry and the resultant beneficial effect it would have on their business of selling cheap imported wines. People in the industry and people who leech off the industry will know full well the serious damage that a wine tax will cause to the industry all the way back to the grape grower. Of course, these are the people I feel very sorry for. My relations were among the pioneers of the Murray Riverland area. After the First World War they pioneered and developed properties and an industry which has become of major significance to South Australia. I still have cousins who work in that part of South Australia. I know very well their feelings on this matter. I know that the impost in the present Budget will have an effect on employment in that area. As Senator Messner quite correctly pointed out it is not only the wine industry we are concerned about; we are also concerned about the related industries, for example, the tourist industry and other service industries that depend on the grape growers and the wine producers of our State. Senator Messner also quite properly pointed to the fact that the wine industry is certainly not confined to South Australia. There is a growing wine industry in Western Australia. The quality of the wine there has improved immensely over the past 10 years or so. Even Tasmania is producing good wine. This could be a growth industry if we concentrated on helping the industry itself and not making these imposts on it. A newspaper article headed 'Amber lobby aims to exorcise beer excise' was drawn to my attention by Senator Townley. The article states: Australian Associated Brewers chairman, CUB's Mr Lou Mangan, said he welcomed the Government finally listening to the AAB's submissions on the 'chronic imbalance of alcohol taxation'. 'The industry has continually highlighted the extremely unfair treatment of the Australian beer consumer . . . 'The decision to introduce a 10 per cent sales tax on wine takes an important first step-- I repeat, 'first step'-- in the direction of real equity.' If this is the first step I hate to think what the second step will do to this significant industry, particularly in South Australia. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(4.08) —I wish to comment on what Senator Messner has said. He called some of us disloyal to our States. That is not the case. I have always believed as a senator from South Australia that I have a responsibility to the whole of this nation. I have not come here entirely to represent South Australia. Any Federal parliamentarian doing his or her duty has a responsibility to the whole of this nation. That should be taken into account. In looking at the ramifications of not taxing wine we can see that many rural people, for example, those supporting the barley industry, the sugar industry or the hop industry have suffered because there has been no tax at all on wine. I think that has to be taken into account by any responsible government. I say that this is a very responsible government. We govern the whole of Australia correctly. We are far better economic managers than the Opposition was when in government. It would be disastrous for the barley industry, the sugar industry and the hop industry not to take account of that fact. The sugar industry in Queensland is in trouble. It produces rum. People today are not drinking, beer, rum, whiskies or brandies. They are drinking table wines. To make wine so attractive is to destroy other industries. That should be taken into account by responsible government. This Government has taken it into account. Let us look at the wine industry over the years. To the end of June this year 308 million litres of wine were consumed in this country. The production of beer is continually decreasing as is the production of brandy and whisky, simply because those industries are taxed but wine is not. Senator Messner mentioned a speech I made in the Senate some months ago during which I said that it would benefit the wine industry to go to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and come to an agreement to have a sales tax rather than an excise tax imposed. I believed that then. Senator Messner, Senator Jessop and I met with industry representatives less than three and a half months ago at Waikerie. I told them exactly the same thing. I said that it was in their interests to go to the Government and come to an agreement about sales tax that would last for five years. Senator Messner said that it would take seven years for the industry to readjust. I believe that that estimate is a little high. I think it would take five years for the industry to readjust as it takes about five years for the grape plantings to come into production. Six years ago, when Senator Teague first came into the Senate, he said: 'I will stop any tax or excise being put on brandy'. Senator Teague —I didn't say that. Senator ELSTOB —He said excise. It is all in Hansard. He voted for that excise. Increasing the excise at that time had disastrous effects on the brandy and wine industries. At the last meeting I had with industry representatives I told them that it was a great shame that in those days they did not put up a proposition for the imposition of a sales tax instead of an excise. I believe that there is a case to be put for the imposition of a sales tax on wine and brandy. It is probably not too late for that to be done. I think that the Government should look at it. One should not say that the wine industry cannot survive because of the imposition of a tax as low as the one that has been put on it-a tax of 10 per cent on the wholesale price of wine. It is not a tax on the bottling, the corking, the labelling or the transportation of wine. It is a tax on its wholesale price. Senator Walsh said that there is about a 20 per cent mark up from the wholesale price to the retail price. That is not quite correct. Cask wine has about a 20 per cent mark up. Overall there is about a 50 per cent mark up on the whole range of bottled, higher class wines. The retail price takes into account the cost of the bottling, corkage and transportation of the wine. The present tax is not on bottling, corkage or transportation which means that the increase in cost of a cask of wine, which is very cheap-it sells for under $5 and has a 20 per cent mark up on it-will be about 33 cents. It is ridiculous to say that a four litre or five litre cask of wine can not take that increase. There is a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks and on every other beverage. Not to do anything about this situation-and I told industry representatives this when I met them-would be unrealistic. Senator Messner of the Liberal Party said: 'We will not impose a tax'. I said to him: 'I do not believe that any government can withstand that pressure'. It is not good to leave the wine industry untaxed to the detriment of all the other industries I have mentioned. It is wrong to destroy certain industries and allow others to flourish. There is a responsibility in this country to pay taxes. It is wrong to have a great difference in the taxes being paid. Senator Hill —Why didn't you say that at the election? Senator ELSTOB —I have defended the wine industry. Every honourable senator and member who knows the wine industry knew that the situation was coming to an end. At the last meeting I had with the industry at Waikerie some people said: 'We believe what you are saying', but the industry as a whole would not face its responsibilities, go to the Government and say that it would accept a sales tax for a period of, say, five years. That would have been responsible of the industry. I have told its members that and I shall continue to do so. This measure will not damage the industry. It will help other industries. It would be wrong to say to the primary producers who produce barley, sugar, hops, or any of the other ingredients that go into beer, rum, brandy and whisky, that their profitability will fall and that there will not be a market for their supplies, but that the grape industry will not be taxed; it will have a free go. That is not the way to run a country and it is not being responsible. The wine industry knew what was coming. Those in the industry who paid the tax imposed on fortified wines and spirits will have it returned to them. I believe that that is correct. I said that the tax was not a good thing and told the Treasurer so. I told the industry, however, that it would eventually have to pay either an excise or sales tax and that sales tax was the best way to go. It is less damaging to the industry. I will still fight for the imposition of a sales tax on wine and brandy. I think that it is possible. Senator Messner —We have a sales tax on brandy. Senator ELSTOB —But the main income is derived from excise. I believe that a tax at a higher rate could and should be considered. The industry would be better off. Senator Hill —You are putting the rate up on wine too? Senator ELSTOB —I believe that the present rate is sufficient. It is very low when one takes into account the wholesale price of wine. It is far less than the tax on soft drinks. Wine is the cheapest drink to consume today, even with the 10 per cent sales tax on its wholesale price. It has been let off very lightly. I maintain that the industry will survive. It can survive. It is about time that the industry started exporting. Production is continually increasing. Some areas are already exporting. Senator Messner —But you have lowered the tariff as well. Senator ELSTOB —The tariff will not affect the industry whatsoever. Australian wines are the cheapest in the world. In quality they are as good as any product anywhere in the world. They can compete and they should be doing so. There is no doubt about it. The tax will not affect the industry's production and to say so is being ridiculous. It will bring it into line with other industries. It most certainly will not damage it. Senator Teague —It happens for cars, for shirts, for shoes-for every other product. Senator ELSTOB —If one looks at the results of surveys that have been done one sees that in the past the majority of people thought there was an excise on wine . Many people were quite surprised to learn there was no excise or tax on wine. One study revealed that 46 per cent of the people surveyed were drinking less beer than they were a year ago, that 24 per cent had increased their wine consumption relative to beer and that about one in five peope who had shifted from drinking beer to drinking wine had nominated price as the major factor. The only reason price was the major factor was that there was no tax at all on the wine industry. The wine industry has been a cinderella industry. It has very good management. The tax will mean an additional cost of well under 30c to 40c a bottle for the majority of wine that is drunk. Senator Messner —What about in a restaurant? How much do you reckon they will add for that? Senator ELSTOB —Restaurants buy casks at wholesale prices, at less than $4 a cask. The majority of wine drunk at restaurants is from carafes. One could not calculate the tax imposed on a cask of wine. One would have to add about 1c to its price. The tax on high priced wines will be about 50c to 60c. As I said, the tax will be imposed on the wholesale price of wine, not on the bottling, corking or transportation of it. That is what honourable senators opposite are not taking into account. When we come down to it, it results in a very small increase in the price of wine. It will have hardly any effect at all. I believe the Government has been responsible. It has a responsibility to all the other industries. Should we tell the people who represent Queensland that its sugar industry should not be taken into account or say to the barley growers on Yorke Peninsula that they should not be taken into account for taxation purposes? I support the imposition of a tax on wine. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.24) —The Senate is debating a most important matter of public importance which is in the following terms: The imposition by the Hawke Labor Government of a tax on wine and the disastrous impact such a tax will have on the Australian wine industry. When introducing the 1983-84 Budget the Treasurer (Mr Keating) boasted that this Government had 'shown the Australian people that their trust in us was well founded'. For those Australians whose livelihoods depend directly or indirectly on the continued economic health of the Australian wine industry the Treasurer's statement is indeed bitterly ironic. For the second Budget in succession this Government has broken its solemn pledge to wine producers in February 1983 that a Labor Government would not impose a tax on wine. Australian Labor Party honourable senators have heard today, and they will hear again, the terms of that pledge made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 20 February 1983. The Prime Minister, to use one of his favourite expressions, unequivocally committed a Labor Government to a no wine tax policy. We know that the Prime Minister, a man who is highly sensitive to attacks on his credibility, stated: Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. It is not surprising that the very moderate Peter Arnold, shadow Minister of Agriculture in the South Australian Parliament, a man who lives in the Riverland and is deeply devoted to and involved with the Riverland, said of the Prime Minister yesterday in the South Australian Parliament: I can only describe the Prime Minister as a disgustingly dishonest little wretch. One week before that pledge was made, I remind the Senate that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, said at a meeting of grape growers and wine makers at McLaren Vale in South Australia: The wine industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. Mr Deputy President, Mr Kerin had the nerve to underline the word 'not' in the Press statement on that meeting. He concluded: The industry is obviously in strife. A Federal Labor Government will assist it over the problem period, with an eye to measures that will give it a long term, stable future. I invite honourable senators to compare that with the words we just heard from Senator Elstob in his speech. Mr Kerin, the now Minister, said then: The industry is obviously in strife. A Federal Labor Government will assist it- this tax is its form of assistance- over the problem period, with an eye to measures that will give it a long term, stable future. Given such unconditional assurances the Australian wine industry would have rightly expected such promises to be adhered to. We know how empty and cynical those promises were. Within six months of assuming office the Government had imposed an excise tax on fortified wine and spirits which we now know-we said it would happen at the time-threatened to send many producers to the wall. Although that excise was subsequently lowered it soon became apparent that the tax was having serious effects on many wine makers, in particular those in the Riverland of South Australia. I am pleased that the previous speaker spoke of the Riverland. I want to get back to talking about that area. Even in March this year it was reported that due to the tax on fortified wine major wine makers were indicating that they could no longer afford to make the volumes of port and sherry they used to make. Workers had been laid off and at least 100,000 tonnes of grapes were expected to be left to rot on the vines. Yet it was not until June that the Government decided, in the face of the harm that was being done to the fortified wine industry, to abolish the tax. The Government now, twelve months after breaching its election promise to the Australian wine industry the first time, has returned for a second go. For $49m in revenue this year the Government has imposed a tax burden on an industry which can least afford it. I remind the previous speaker that even Mr Kerin in his election statements said it was the type of industry which could least afford it. The impact of this tax, if it goes ahead, will no doubt be scathing. The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association Incorporated expects the tax impost to result in about a 4.2 per cent fall in sales in the short term and up to a 13.5 per cent fall in sales in the longer term. The Association bases those estimates on calculations for price elasticity of demand made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Such figures imply, according to the Association's President, Mr Geoff Nettlebeck, a loss in sales to wine makers of 40 million litres per year in the long term and reduced grape intake from growers of 65,000 tonnes. In dollars this is the equivalent to a $15.6m loss to growers a year. The impact of such projections are horrific, and they are particularly so to the South Australian industry. In 1983 South Australia produced 203,160 kilolitres of a total Australian production figure of 340,076 kilolitres of wine. Therefore it produced approximately 60 per cent of the national total. Furthermore, it processed about 55 per cent of all grapes used in Australian wine production. That is why we believe that the previous speaker, a senator from South Australia, should be concerned about the impact of this impost on the South Australian economy. Moreover, as the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, pointed out in State Parliament yesterday, close to 60 per cent of the wine produced in South Australia is produced in the Riverland, an area which, as all honourable senators would be aware, has serious economic problems. Speaking of Mr Bannon, what an embarrassment this impost must be for him. It is just another example where he and his Government have shown that unfortunately they do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Prime Minister Hawke. Senator Messner —No clout. Senator Teague —No clout. Senator HILL —No clout at all, as my colleagues from South Australia have said. We saw it with the Alice Springs-Darwin railway, we have seen it in this exercise and, no doubt, we will soon see it with respect to the submarine project. Unfortunately, the Bannon Government is not serving South Australia well in its relations with the Federal Government. Members of the Government should take note of the comments of the embarrassed South Australian Labor Premier yesterday regarding the impact that this tax will have on the economy of South Australia. I quote from the Hansard of the debate in South Australia yesterday. He said: It is certainly true that by imposing a sales tax on wine the Federal Government has discriminated against South Australia. That is why we expect Labor senators to be having something positive to say for their State on this issue because it is a tax that is discriminating against South Australia. Mr Bannon went on to express his attitude to the manner in which this decision was made. He said: I think the way in which the Federal Government has dealt with this matter ( which is not very different from the previous approach of the Hawke Government) is quite scandalous. The Labour Premier in South Australia, clearly embarrassed, is saying that the way in which the Hawke Government has handled this matter, which is similar to the way in which it has handled other matters, is quite scandalous. Scandalous indeed! The Federal Labor Government has obviously bowed to the eastern States' dominated brewery lobby without a thought as to how its decision might detrimentally affect the South Australian economy. It appears that it did not give a thought to the place of wine production in the South Australian economy. It is a classical case of political cynicism. Did Mr Hawke give a thought to the levels of unemployment that we have in South Australia, to the recent history of small wineries starting to spring up and the fact that each of these small wineries is an employer of labour? Was a thought given to that? Clearly, no. Not only did he fail to consider the direct employment opportunities within these wineries but also the employment of the grape growers themselves, again small businessmen who have struggled in recent years, as we know. Did he consider how long it takes to establish wine grapes, the capital involved in trellising and irrigation and the years of no return- that is the distinction having regard to the previous speaker's attempted analogy with barley growers-which occur in relation to grape growers? How many of these small businessmen will be forced over the brink by this inpost? We have yet to see. It is something that is obviously of deep concern to all Liberal senators from South Australia. Did the Hawke Government consider the role played by wineries in the tourist industry in South Australia? Again they are small businesses, offering accommodation, food and other services; small businesses that are employers of labour; small businesses that we would have thought, in the current economic circumstances, the Hawke Government would be wanting to encourage rather than discourage. But again it appears that there was a failure to give consideration to the employment opportunities that they provide. Around every small winery in South Australia we have found these ancillary small businesses springing up. How will they suffer as a result of the impost of this tax when small wineries fall by the wayside? What can be more scandalous than a decision that will cost up to 4,000 jobs in South Australia and cost South Australian wine grape growers $15m in lost income , with $5m of that lost revenue being borne by growers in the Riverland where they can least afford it. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would know that the Riverland is an area of comparatively low income. It is an area which has struggled in recent years. We know what has happened with the dried fruits industry. We know of the series of redevelopment proposals that have come by. That is the area of South Australia which will suffer more than any other area. It is the area of South Australia which can least afford it. Let me conclude by touching on the role of South Australian Labor senators in this matter. We all know that it is difficult for small States such as South Australia to have their voices adequately heard in Canberra. That places a considerable onus upon senators. When a Labor government is in office it places a considerable onus upon South Australian Labor senators. Those senators have let us down in relation to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway and they have let us down again in relation to this issue. We know that this matter will be brought to the attention of the South Australian voters at the forthcoming election and we trust that they will act accordingly and return Liberal senators who are prepared to come to this place and fight for the interests of South Australia rather than make the type of disappointing contribution that we heard from Labor Senator Elstob whose speech immediately preceded my contribution. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.36) — This debate is nominally about the wine tax. If honourable senators will forgive the outrageous pun, it is indeed very taxing to listen to the whine coming from the Opposition. This debate lacks any real context. On Tuesday night the Budget was presented. The Budget was generally received well around Australia as a responsible document, a document that will continue the economic growth of this country. On Wednesday, if members of the Opposition felt really strongly about any aspect of the Budget, they had a chance to bring forward a matter of public importance. They did not. They blew it; they did nothing. On Thursday, after muddling around all Wednesday trying to think up an issue, they discovered this one. I think it is instructive to look at the Budget. This is the week of the Budget . Let us take the whole of the Budget. What does the Opposition do? Does it attack us on the deficit? No, it did not. Did it attack us on our social welfare program? No. Did it attack us on tax cuts? No, it did not attack us on tax cuts at all. Did it go for us after education? Not at all. Did it do anything about job creation or unemployment? No, it did not. Did it go for what I would have thought would have been the logical approach of an opposition and attack us on the framework of the Budget in its first opportunity to debate a matter of public importance after the Budget? No, it did not. It is instructive to see the Opposition's priorities. The whole structure and edifice of the Budget are left unscathed. All the positive, economic measures that this Government has brought down are left unattacked. What the Opposition does choose is one revenue raising item that will raise $62m in a full year and it attacks that. If, by not doing things, one speaks with a certain eloquence, the eloquence coming from the Opposition is not to pull us on at all about the economy or about the Budget, as Question Time has revealed in this chamber, but rather to focus on what in the whole thing is a serious issue certainly for the people affected but what, in the overall, economic and budgetary context at the present time, is a very small matter. If that is the best that the Opposition can do the ratings that this Government has in the polls will be proven when we go to the election. As I have said, that is not to say the issue of the wine tax should not be addressed. I believe it should be addressed in the overall economic and Budget context. In talking about context, one should note that all the very puny comments that have been made by the Opposition indicate the economic ineptitude of the Opposition, an Opposition limping along with a discredited shadow Treasurer, former Treasurer of this country, who constructed previous Budgets that gave rise to the level of unemployment that this Government is doing something to combat. The Opposition is being led into irrelevance by a limp, Gucci-clad leader. The recovery of the economy, the levels of increased employment, lowering inflation, growth levels in Australia and the turnaround on investment have not been spoken about. Instead, we have a whine about wine. There is one other general contextual consideration as well. Members of the Opposition would have been convincing and would have been able to make a reasonable sort of impact in this debate had they come into the Senate and said: 'All right, we think that the wine tax should be removed, the $49m to be raised in this financial year should be taken off and the $62m in a full year should be removed and we suggest this other taxing measure to replace it'. They have not done that at all. They have said: 'Cut income'. As Senator Walsh pointed out in reply to the position explained by Senator Chaney after Question Time on the quotes about the Press Club speech made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that already the implications of what has been said of the Opposition would blow this economy out of control by exaggerating the deficit much more. But members of the Opposition have not come forward and have not attempted to be constructive. They have simply attempted to whine again and they have not said what they will do. Senator Walsh pointed out that Mr Howard in his Press Club speech said that, in his view, there would be no tax cuts but rather the money would be applied to lower the deficit. Senator Chaney contests that and said that really what Mr Howard meant, although he did not actually make it clear at the Press Club, is that he would cut outlays. If that is the argument, what outlays will be cut? Will it be money for job creation, money for pensions, money for education? Members of the Opposition cannot come in here and argue that a revenue raising aspect should be obliterated and not put their whole case about what they would do with respect to raising a replacement amount. That leads me to the issue that will dog the Opposition between now and the election and until we get the numbers in this place to do something about the matter. If Opposition members are really serious and dinkum about looking at the question of the wine tax, why do they not gather their courage and vote for one of the tax avoidance Bills that have been put through this House. The last tax avoidance Bill that was passed would have raised $1 billion had members of the Opposition voted for it. Opposition members are trying to remove a revenue- raising amount of $62m in a full year. I know they do not like talking about tax avoidance, but the people of Australia understand their duplicity on the subject while Opposition senators continue to vote down revenue-raising measures and do things on tax avoidance they cannot in all honesty stand up here as a credible Opposition and attack one of the positive revenue-raising mechanisms being introduced through this Budget by the Government. I will turn to the subject that has been put on the agenda for debate; that is, the wine tax. Basically two arguments can be put which demolish the arguments that members of the Opposition have raised. The first of those two arguments is fairness and the second is the imposition of the tax will have a negligible effect. Members of the Opposition have not said what their definition of 'fair' is. I wonder whether Senator Teague, in the few minutes he has to speak on this matter, will bring some credit to a demoralised, discredited arugment and can answer these questions in a positive way. For example, is it fair to tax beer and soft drinks to the level that we tax them in this country leaving wine untaxed? Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Will Opposition senators argue that there is a reasonable balance in providing an excise on beer which, in terms of the 10 per cent equivalent excise tax on wholesale wine would be 80 per cent for bottled beer? Will Opposition senators argue that it is fair to tax bulk beer at 155 per cent? This is the equivalent in terms of what we are talking about as the excise on beer. Will Opposition senators argue that that is fair? Will they argue that a tax on a cask of wine-which Senator Walsh says is between 10c and 80c a cask according to what type of wine and how upmarket or downmarket it will be-is fair when the equivalent tax on the same quantity of beer is $3.50? Whatever is the selection on Senator Walsh's accurate scale of quotes-10c or 80c according to the quality of the product of wine-honourable senators have to say that the comparable cost of beer is $3.50. Will Opposition senators argue that that is fair? No argument can be put on the matter. Will Opposition senators say that when we tax most carbonated soft drinks, which are subject to a sales tax at a rate of about 20 per cent that it is fair to do that but not to tax wine at all? The drinks that the kids of this country consume, rightly or wrongly, ought to be taxed at the level of about 20 per cent, but we leave wine untaxed. Is that fair? For example is it fair that the tax we are putting on wine is a progressive tax so that those who can afford it most pay most and those who can least afford it, those who buy the cheaper bottles or cheaper casks of wine pay less. That is fair. Will Opposition senators say that that is wrong? Is it their definition of fair to have a flat tax so that those who earn less and can pay less pay more out of their salary in comparison to those who earn more and can afford to pay more. This is another example of slugging the low income earner yet again. Is that the Opposition's definition of fairness? I was interested to hear some of the remarks made by Senator Jessop when he spoke about imported wine competing with the Australian product. About five per cent of the market in Australia is imported wine. I understand that the estimate the Government has is that the effect of this surcharge would only affect the level of imports by less than half a per cent. So we are just talking about 5 1/ 2 per cent of the market. Let us look at what is fair and what is reasonable. The equivalent sales tax on imported wine is around 20 per cent. Of course, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade level for that product is around about 10 per cent. GATT is aware that Australia is above its level in terms of what is a reasonable surcharge for imports in this area. The logical outcome is that if we , as a government, do not do something about bringing our levels closer in line with GATT-we bring it closer to the level of GATT by this measure-what will we be inviting? We will be inviting some trade retaliation. Perhaps Opposition senators' definition of fair is that if there is a trade retaliation on beef, which is a big export item for Australia, that is fair. I await this answer with great interest from Senator Teague when he makes his speech. Senator MacGibbon —You are giving it all away. Senator COOK —If the honourable senator wants to talk about beef, we can talk about how his Party when in government allowed the whole beef market to be reduced by not doing anything about it. But Opposition senators have chosen to talk about wine. As soon as I talk about wine, Opposition senators want to talk about beef. I suppose this shows that they are not really interested in hearing the argument about wine. I will talk about the second reason as to why it is reasonable to impose this tax and that is the negligible effect. Much of the analysis in terms of the tearjerking presentation made by Senator Hill on employment aspects is based on one survey. It is a speculative proposition. It is speculation as to what the effect of a levy will be. He bases on speculation a whole panoply of argument about the effects of employment. The survey comes from a reasonable source and so he has got that to support him. The estimate comes from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Tsolakis, Reithmuller and Watts paper, 'The Demand for Wine and Beer'. This estimate appeared in the Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51. Senator Hill bases his whole argument on that premise. Once put together, the argument itself is reasonably impressive. But if it is based on a wrong premise, it fails. That is a proposition in logic that even members of the Opposition might understand. Let us go to that premise. This is a reasonable question. Is that the only assessment that has ever been made about the likely effect of the imposition of this tax? No, it is not. There are at least two others. What do they disclose? Nothing like the argument that is put forward in the Tsolakis, Reithmuller and Watts paper. They argue, in a paper produced by C. W. Murphy entitled 'The Market for Alcoholic Beverages: Pricing, Demand and Taxation', that the effect would not be a 14 per cent decline in the future that has been talked about by Senator Hill, Senator Messner and Senator Jessop in their speeches, but rather a 3 per cent decline. The Ken Clements paper entitled 'Taxation of Alcohol in Australia' quoted by Senator Walsh says that the effect would be a 4 per cent decline. So we have a misstatement of speculation. We have one survey finding one result and two surveys being congruent at a much lower level. That much lower level does not produce the dire consequences that have been forecast, in particular by Senator Hill. The other thing about the document quoted from by Senator Hill is that it relates to a survey conducted between 1955 and 1979. Anyone who has lived from that time until now knows by his or her own experience the diversification of social habit in Australia and knows that wine has become much more entrenched in the daily consumption of Australians than it was in 1955 or even in the period spanning 1955 to 1979. The wine industry has become a much more mature industry. As it has developed wine has become entrenched in our tastes. One could therefore say that based on the old level, the old marginal entrenchment of the wine industry, one can come to a conclusion. But if one looks at the real world of today's levels, I think the proposition can be justified that, as stated in the other two surveys from which I have quoted-a three per cent of four per cent effect-a negligible effect overall is really the case and that therefore the argument that is being put is a hollow, shallow argument. In the end it comes down to what Senator Walsh says: Honourable senators opposite hate beer drinkers. In the end it comes down to what Senator Walsh also says, that honourable senators opposite are quite happy to luxuriate in the idea that those who drink carbonated drinks, the kids, should pay 20 per cent but they oppose an excise of about 10 per cent on wine makers, when that is a reasonable proposition in the context of the economy and economic growth in Australia. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.51) —All the State parliaments that are meeting in Australia are unanimous that this new tax imposed by the Hawke Labor Government is an unjust tax. In the Budget presented on Tuesday night $62m in a full year was levied on this important Australian industry, half of which is in the State of South Australia. It is no accident that all four Liberal senators from South Australia have participated and protested in this debate in the Senate today. Only one Australian Labor Party senator from South Australia was even in the chamber. He was prepared to speak. He admitted that he suggested that there be this sales tax. As for the Australian Democrats, they have not been present at all for this debate this afternoon. They in fact support this tax on wine. They think it is justified, however much damage it does. Only the Liberal and National Party Opposition protests, along with all the State parliaments of Australia, the entire wine industry and the consuming public of Australia, that this unfair tax totalling $62m has been laid upon wine after a decade of there not being any such federally imposed sales tax on wine. The wine industry in Australia is very important. Some 662,000 tonnes of grapes are produced annually in Australia; at least, that was the figure in 1983. Over half of this-430,000 tonnes-is put to wine making. It is estimated that 65,000 tonnes of this will be lost as a direct result of this sales tax on wine. Of the 430,000 tonnes, 65,000 tonnes will be left hanging on the vine. This is because the impact of the higher price to the consumer because of the sales tax will lead to a drop in consumption estimated to be 14 per cent. There has been some debate as to how this figure of 14 per cent has been arrived at. On page 4 of the Budget submission of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association an example is given. It gives the example that if there were to be, say, a 10 per cent increase in price, 'sales of wine could be expected to fall initially by 4. 3 per cent and after a longer period to a level 13.5 per cent below the original level'. But beyond this there will be a stocks decline which is a flow on of that new level of expected sales so that the present stocks in retail outlets for wine will satisfy the market more adequately and there will not be buying up to replenish stocks. So there will be a marked impact upon grape growers and producers. In Australia there are some 5,000 grape growing establishments. Some 8,000 persons are directly employed in the industry. Will 1,000 of those jobs be lost? It will be at the feet of the Hawke Labor Government that those 1,000 Australians working in the industry will have lost their jobs. More than half of them, I am afraid, will be in my State of South Australia. That is why four Liberal South Australian senators are debating this issue and protesting so strongly here today. There is an estimate that about 20 litres per capita of wine is consumed in Australia and that the retail value of this wine is greater than half a billion dollars. Indeed, on the Government's own estimate it must be greater than $600m, as the sales tax is estimated to raise $62m in a full year. I can see that the Government can easily trot out simplistic arguments to the effect that it wants revenue from any quarter that might be found, but has it taken into account the impact upon the industry and upon jobs, principally in areas of South Australia? It has not, and that is why we protest. It is all very well for the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, to try to give some simplistic economic arguments about one particular industry or to compare wine with beer or soft drink, or with milk for that matter, which he did not raise, but I believe the measure that the Senate and the Government must have in this debate is the measure of what the actual impact will be on the wine industry and on those persons employed in the industry. It is estimated that this fall in consumption of some 40 million litres of wine, or 65,000 tonnes of grapes left on the vine, will cost producers $15m per annum. That is just the cost to producers. What a handy coincidence it is that this is exactly the amount that was expected to be raised by the excise on fortified wine in the last Budget. The fortified wine excise and this sales tax on wine are both directly contrary to this firm Labor promise at the last election: Labor will not- the words 'will not' are underlined- impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. This statement was given by the primary industry spokesman, Mr Kerin. At one stage in South Australia he was accompanied by the honourable member for Kingston, Mr Bilney. I quote what Mr Bilney said in the House of Representatives after the first reneging on that promise in the 1983 Budget. As reported in the Hansard of 25 August, he said: The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in his remarks referred to the fact that I appeared on a platform with the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, in McLaren Vale during the election campaign. It is quite true that on that occasion I appeared on that platform. The promise was given to the wine industry that there would be no sales or excise taxes on wines. I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of this Budget. That was nonsense. It was not completely honoured. Where is there a bush or a shed big enough to hide Mr Bilney now? Is he claiming that that promise is completely honoured in the 1984 Budget? Is he saying that this direct sales tax on wine completely honours the promise that was given by the ALP in that 1983 election campaign? Of course he is not, but he is going very close to it when he says that it is inevitable that there would be such a tax. He is reported as saying this week in response to the Budget: 'I am not surprised. I regard such a sales tax on wine as inevitable'. He is saying that he regards the word of the Labor Government Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) as not worth one cent. He is even regarding his own word as not worth one cent. The Labor Government has completely debased the firm promise that it gave to the wine industry and all South Australians who are affected by this measure. Where is the Government's credibility with regard to these matters? It has added insult to injury by announcing that there will be a full comprehensive inquiry into the wine industry, beginning this week, after-not before-this wine tax has been imposed on the industry. As another insult, the Government has let off imported wines, giving them an easier passage. There is less of a barrier for imported wines coming into Australia. During the past five years, imports of brandy have risen to capture 25 per cent of the Australian market. Will that happen during the year of this Budget? Will that happen with the easy ride that the Government has given to imported wines? During the debate today, the Minister for Resources and Energy said that he did not have any answer to the statement that the Labor Party had broken its promise so flatly. The honourable senator did not make any beginnings of an excuse for the Labor Party having broken its promise. At one stage, during an exchange with Senator Withers, the Minister said that the Labor Government's record was not much worse than the previous Government's record. He said that the Burke, Bannon and Cain governments were economically illiterate. The Minister said: 'Not just you Liberals but those other Labor governments in the States which are protesting about this wine tax are economically illiterate.' Let that statement be known to those governments and let us see what they have to say about the honourable senator from Western Australia. The Minister was so fully prepared to defend this decision that he claimed in his speech today that no more equitable tax than this wine tax exists. Senator Elstob, unashamedly, said that he was involved in this matter not so much as a senator for South Australia but as a senator for all Australia. That is his judgment. I believe that in a matter such as this, which is so vital to South Australia, he could have stood up with the four Liberal Party senators to protest as Mr Bannon and the entire Labor membership in the House of Assembly in my State have done; but I shall give credit to Senator Elstob for coming here to admit honestly that he had suggested that a sales tax on wine should be imposed and had said so to the industry. The honourable senator has been honest and straightforward in this matter. He was not accompanied in the debate by any other Labor senator from South Australia nor an Australian Democrat. Senator Cook said: 'After all, this is a small matter' as if that were an excuse to defend this total reneging on the Labor Party's firm promise prior to the election. Somehow the honourable senator deduced, as another defence, that our protest today showed only that Liberals hate beer drinkers. That is nonsense , as anyone who knows the Opposition could demonstrate. We are in favour of those who drink milk, soft drinks, beer or wine. We cannot be called haters of beer drinkers. Protests about this matter have not been made by any of the Labor members in my State of South Australia or, to my knowledge, by any Government member from any of the States. Where were Senators Bolkus, Crowley, Maguire and Foreman today? What will they say when the people of South Australia put it to them in the coming Senate election that they did not stand up for South Australia but gave in to a Hawke Labor Government Caucus decision and merely bleated: 'The tax is inevitable and, therefore, we will not protest'? Their Labor colleagues in the State governments are protesting to the hilt in the State parliaments, but there is not a protest from any of those government members. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the honourable member for Port Adelaide, was stood down from the Cabinet over the past month or so. He was the only South Australian supposed member of the Government who was in the Cabinet. During the period he was absent from office when there was no voice for South Australia, this decision was made. It has led indiscriminately to suffering in South Australia. That is why the Bannon Government, prodded by Mr Olsen, the Liberal Party leader, and the entire House of Assembly are protesting about this matter. They cannot thank Mr Young; he was not there. We conclude that this new wine tax is a deliberately broken promise of the Hawke Labor Government and is directly contrary to its election undertaking in March 1983. That will not be forgotten by the Opposition or the wine industry. This new $52m tax will wound the wine industry and cause 65,000 tonnes of grapes to be left on the vine and perhaps 1,000 jobs to be lost. More than half of this damage will take place where 60 per cent of the wine is produced in this country -in my State of South Australia. I join with all members of the Opposition in protesting at this tax most vociferously. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.07) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. A couple of years ago, the canned fruits industry reached a serious position with a very large stockpile. That situation called for a much needed rationalisation in all the circumstances of international marketing problems. That rationalisation has occurred significantly, so that recently major producers of canned fruits have shown a profitable return. It is interesting to observe that recently the stockpile has been reduced to a level that is considered acceptable in the industry. That reduction is the result of a concerted effort by all those involved in the fruit canning industry . Once again, that circumstance emphasises the problems suffered by many areas of primary industry in this country as a result of the operation of subsidised surpluses under the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. In the last two years, the market for Australian canned fruits in, for instance, West Germany has been lost totally. In Denmark Australian fruit has been supplanted by fruit from Greece and Italy, both of which countries can operate under the protection of significant duties and very substantial subsidies. I conclude by congratulating the industry on accepting the reality of the circumstances, reducing its size by almost 30 per cent since 1980 and restructuring with the complete co-operation of producers, canners, employees and the other ancillary businesses involved. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.10) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation published a booklet in 1983 which detailed its objectives, functions and strategy. This was a positive move and was reflected in the content of this report. Actually, 1983 was a difficult year for the industry. It is regrettable that production estimates were far from met due to the effects of drought, heat waves, hail and bushfires, but it is pleasing that sales and export returns were generally satisfactory despite all those problems. In the export area it is pleasing that the so-called 'Captain Kangaroo' promotion initiative seems to be progresssing quite well. It is good to see that a proposal is being developed to feature the 'Captain' on all export cartons. Something distinctively Australian will no doubt be beneficial. In the domestic area, the initiatives that have been taken have proved to be quite rewarding. For example, apple and pear based recipes which have been issued every six weeks to 180 Australian newspapers have been reported to be a great success. Useful research was undertaken into people's preferences for apples and pears which will be used for future advertising. The experimental joint apple and pear promotion, with a major national supermarket chain providing sales presentation and storage hints, resulted in very worthwhile sales improvements. Also, the children's target market was well covered, with educational and publicity material highlighting the nutritional value of this fruit being sent to all schools around Australia. In research, the Apple and Pear Industry Research Foundation is continuing its important work. It is developing efficient techniques for the industry, particularly spraying techniques, and in the effective control of pests and in the application of fungicides, and in evaluating and assessing the quality of fruit. It is good to see that funding in 1984 has been increased, too. Processed apple and pear production increased markedly in 1983, and it is encouraging that even in Tasmania we have a new processor starting on the Tasman Peninsula. I take this opportunity of wishing him well. This report is of particular significance to Tasmania, which is one of the major apple export producers in Australia. It is pleasing to see at least some sort of recovery within the industry, particularly in my State. I congratulate those growers who have taken some pretty bold steps in this rejuvenation process. Congratulations must go to the Corporation on the success of its marketing strategies. The appointment of Mr Peter Calvert to the Corporation will mean continued improvement, because Peter can make a significant contribution. He is a large grower in Tasmania, he is active and he is forward-looking. Also, I thank the retiring members for their contributions, particularly the Tasmanians, Mr R. B. Walker and Mr E. A. N. Beaumont. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.14) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the fifteenth time since 1969 that the Poultry Research Advisory Committee has reported. It has spent something over $3.5m in that period on research in its industry. Indeed, in the 1983-84 period just concluded it was to spend-one would assume that it has spent it-$400,000 on no fewer than 36 different projects. The diversity of the area of its research is of very real significance. In the areas of environmental influences, in egg quality, genetics , farm management, marketing aspects, and across the whole range of the industry , its research is concentrated and of very great significance. There is the comment, of course, which is not an unusual one, that there is a widening gap between the funds that are available for research and the amount of research that is sought to be done. I suppose that that leads the Committee into a somewhat difficult decision whereby it may well have to concentrate on only those areas which it sees as of immediate concern in future years. I had an opportunity just recently to observe the intensive poultry industry, and I must say that evidence of research there in both feeding and watering of the animals, with reference to the space required, the quality of eggs and certainly the mechanisation of the checking and grading of the product is quite remarkable. That itself is further evidence of the value of research in this industry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.16) -I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and KKFC Pty Ltd, a fishing organisation. The agreement refers to fishing in the Australian fishing zone waters in the north-western and northern seas around this country. It is of particular significance because it refers and contributes to the Australianisation of the fishing industry in those areas. It provides facilities for the fishermen involved to come into joint ventures and, indeed, to sell the catch of the joint venture to the Taiwanese. I am informed that the Taiwanese are prepared to pass on the expertise of Australian fishermen and to assist with the provision of equipment. This venture, hopefully, will bring not only additional revenue to the Commonwealth but also additional expertise and capacity in the fishing industry. I hope that the agreement, when put into place, is as materially effective as the parties to it believe it will be. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Jessop) proposed: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.20) — We are now dealing with the nefarious Remuneration Tribunal decision, adopting the Government's proposal or that made by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that de facto couples should be placed on the same status as legally married persons. The Tribunal has accepted the invitation issued by the Minister to act as a legislative pacesetter in a matter that is of great and widespread concern to the whole community. The most disconcerting aspect of this matter is that the Tribunal has acted in a manner so as to hinder the free exercise of the Parliament in this matter of major concern. I pointed out in my submission to the Tribunal that for it to acquiesce in the Minister's proposal to clothe the de facto relationship with the same status as a legal marriage for the purposes of overseas travel would be to act as a legislative pacesetter and represent a major public development in this area. I also pointed out in my submission to the Tribunal that if the Tribunal accepts the Minister's proposal, it should not include it in a determination covering other unrelated matters, such as stamp allowances and other entitlements, as this would deny the opportunity for Parliament simply to disallow this specific contentious provision alone. However, the Tribunal has deliberately included its de facto decision in a determination covering other unrelated matters. In practical terms this hinders the free exercise of the audit and control functions of the Parliament. Nevertheless, I intend to press on in one of two ways. Either we can move to disallow this determination and thus disallow all the other things, including stamp allowances and so forth, or we can address this issue directly by the consideration of a Bill of which I gave notice today. I am advised that if we disallow this determination, the previous determination would be revived. But in any case the Tribunal could immediately make a further determination in the same terms as that disallowed, except for the de facto provision, or the Government could achieve the same result by substantive legislation. I believe, however, that in all the circumstances urgent consideration by Parliament of a Bill is preferred, but it requires the agreement of the majority of senators to ensure debate and a vote. Unless that is achieved, this matter will have been determined without proper recourse to the Parliament. One person can take one view and another person a different view on the issue itself, but surely the issue is of such importance that we should be able to consider it and vote upon it rather than to hide behind the legislative pacesetting of a non-elected Remuneration Tribunal. I invite the Government to announce that it will support the bringing on of a Bill to enable the matter to be determined. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.24) —Senator Harradine has already made a request of the Government. I was wondering whether there could be any indication whether the Government will allow the piece of legislation mentioned by Senator Harradine to come up. If not, the alternative recourse would be to move for disallowance. Even though we are not now in Question Time, I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who is now present in the chamber , will be able to answer that question. The Minister is well aware of the concerns in the community about the decision made by the Remuneration Tribunal. I am sure the Minister has been approached about that concern in his position as a Tasmanian senator. I know that many other senators have been approached on the matter and that it is not only people who support the Liberal Party who are showing concern in this area. People who are concerned about the family and what is happening to the family are showing great concern on this topic. One could use the words of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) who said that the standards set by politicans should be high. There is no reason for politicians' standards not to be as high as the community expects of us. Therefore, I ask the Minister to respond to Senator Harradine's question. I am also vitally interested in this matter, as are other members of the Opposition and the Democrats, and I know that we would all be interested in the Minister's comments on this matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.26) —I have been asked a question by Senator Walters. I have not seen the legislation to be put forward by Senator Harradine. I heard his notice of motion today. Senator Harradine —I have sent it to your Leader. Senator GRIMES —I dare say that I shall look at the matter and shall take part in any decision on it. Until the Government has seen the legislation, I suggest it is not up to me, in response to a question by Senator Walters, to give an assurance about a Bill I have not seen. Senator Walters —I am not asking the Minister necessarily to agree with the Bill , but am suggesting that he should not bury it. In other words, will he allow it to come up? Senator Harradine —The proposal was put to you yesterday. Senator GRIMES —The proposal has not been put to me. Senator Harradine —No, it was put to your Leader. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry that my Leader does not rush into the chamber every time Senator Harradine speaks. If Senator Harradine had given my Leader warning that he intended to do what he did this afternoon, or if Senator Walters had given warning she intended to ask such a question, I am sure that he would have been here to answer. Obviously he thought that this afternoon the Senate would be debating papers, as is the practice. I assure honourable senators that we shall look at the legislation and at the legislative program and, of course, we shall consider bringing this matter on. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(5.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The Opposition welcomed the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on the financing of the Australian Capital Territory. The shadow Minister for the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Philip Ruddock, said that the report would enable debate on self-government to take place on a much more informed basis. I think that is so because the report placed before us was very comprehensive. It reveals in the most unambiguous terms the extent to which there might be additional cost for citizens of the Australian Capital Territory if any of the options proposed by the Commission for financing the Territory are accepted. As an instance of these additional costs, under a residual Territory method of financing territorial accounts an extra $373 per person would need to be found. For example, under a residual Commonwealth financing method an extra $191 per person will be required. With the Commission's preferred financing mechanisms the extra per capita amount would be $243 per person. I think it is fair to say that these amounts demonstrate why many people in the past have preferred to see the status quo remain as far as self-government in the Territory is concerned. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in his tabling statement has ignored these questions. In the Minister's remorseless quest for self-government he gives no assurance to the people of the Australian Capital Territory as to how these financial arrangements will be addressed. One of the principal public concerns about the report should be the extent to which the Commission discloses delay in the provision of information, the inability of most departments to separate expenditures in relation to Territory and national functions and the arbitary nature of judgments made in estimating national and Territory costs. While the Grants Commission cautions against the use of its tables as other than illustrations, the clear trend and direction of its study is clear. The cost of self-government to territorians would be significant. Now that the inquiry has revealed considerable above standard service levels in many areas of government activity, additional charges for territorians in years to come will be more difficult to resist. The extent to which further inquiry is needed is confirmed by the Commission's final conclusion that a separate territory fiscus should be established as a basis for co-ordinated budgeting and annual reporting. Such a method of accounting is urgently required. No doubt a number of departments would need to give attention to that. Having regard to the Government's early election time table the interdepartmental committee and postponed action on an Australian Capital Territory fiscus to the 1985-86 Budget are devices to continue self- government as a matter of discussion, but with no further progress being made. I make these remarks at this stage. I feel sure that this report will be one that will invite discussion in more detail at more appropriate times. I simply draw attention to these recommendations and conclusions that have come from the Commission at this stage. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.33) —The Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory Finances report is of great importance to the Australian Capital Territory. The report was commissioned some time ago to try to ascertain the relationship of the finances to the people of Canberra especially in view of the fact that there is a move towards self- government. It is clear that the Australian Labor Party is anxious to move towards self-government. A commitment was given by its then leader when he opened the campaign for the House of Assembly on 21 May 1982. He assured the people of Canberra then that self-government would be brought in within 12 months of Labor attaining government federally. That did not happen but it has been pursued vigorously by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) since he became Minister in March last year. The Australian Labor Party branch council at its meeting of 19 June 1983 called for self-government to be transferred by 1 July 1984. Clearly the Minister has not been able to agree with the Party's request but nonetheless is pursuing it as hard as he can. The Minister has before him the task force report on the implementation of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. He has before him and has had since May 1982 the White committee review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, a report to which he has not yet responded. Its role in the future of Canberra also is important. We now have the task force report to consider and we have not had the Government's response to the White report to which I referred. The alarming part of the Minister's response to the task force report was that even though there was a recommendation that at the earliest opportunity the Government should make a commitment to the principle that national functions in the Australian Capital Territory will continue to be funded by the Commonwealth following self-government, the Minister in his tabling statement did not make that commitment. Again yesterday when the Minister tabled this very important finance report he failed to make any sort of commitment to funding. The report points out that there is a lower level revenue base in the Australian Capital Territory because of the absence of big business, the high level of public service employment which did not pay payroll tax and the reluctance to collect and the inefficiency in collecting taxes and charges. I do not know whether that was written before or after the Minister indicated that he would not pursue arrears of rent on government housing. This no doubt has exacerbated the problem. The report also refers to the cost of health services. I doubt that that relates to our hospitals being more costly than others, but it may well relate to the fact that we have a number of community health centres with paid doctors running them which I believe is a far more costly way of providing health services than is necessary. They are matters still to be looked into. The Minister has announced that an interdepartmental committee will be set up consisting of people from the Department of Territories and Local Government, Treasury and the Department of Finance to work out some arrangement. I find it strange indeed that after the Grants Commission spent so much time on the matter an interdepartmental committee should now be left to pursue it. I would have thought that the Grants Commission could get as close as could be to working out the financial situation. Perhaps now we have the real answer as to why Labor when last in office was not able to fulfil its firm promise that self-government would be brought in. Mr Whitlam and Mr Bryant both made that commitment but neither was able to do it. It may well be that the information now obtained indicates how difficult it is. The Territory does not have the same revenue raising base as the States. We do not have rail, port and road charges. We do not have access to agricultural and manufacturing charges. We do not have oil and minerals on which to raise levy as do the States. Only one-third of our population employed in the private sector pays payroll tax. Of course, this is very much a small business sector with most businesses employing very few people . In the States roughly two-thirds of their employed population in the private sector pay payroll tax. Therefore, there are very significant matters to be looked at. The people of this Territory want a referendum before the matter proceeds. It is very clear that that is their wish. Many petitions have been presented in this place indicating that. Many more signatures have been obtained. I fail to see why the Minister will not listen and grant the people the opportunity to vote on whether they want self-government. Maybe it will be a matter of writing on ballot papers in the election. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of Government Papers has expired. As a number of papers have not been considered I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that they can be raised under General Business if honourable senators so choose if no motion has been moved about them. Senator REID —Mr Deputy President, in that case I seek leave to continue my remarks later on this issue. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Reid, you do not need leave. You may raise the matter under General Business if you wish to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 I present the report of the Reserve Bank Board on the operations of the Bank together with financial statements and the Auditor- General's report thereon, for the year ended 30 June 1984. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) -On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade I present a report dated August 1984 on Australia-China trade, together with a transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLEMAN —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I have the honour to present to the Senate the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade entitled 'Australia-China Trade'. The Committee commenced its inquiry into the prospects of trade between Australian and China following a visit to this country of the Chinese Premier, Zhao Ziyang. Much has happened since that historic visit in April 1983. My Committee believes that China could become one of the most important markets for Australian goods and services by the year 2000. However, it is imperative for Australia to develop this market as much and as quickly as possible because many of our traditional markets have declined over the past 10 to 15 years and there appears to be very little prospect of Australia regaining its place in those markets. Unlike most developing countries China has set about to achieve a steady and sustained rate of growth without becoming too dependent on other countries thus avoiding the only too familiar debt servicing problems. China also regards strong mutual agreement on foreign policy as a necessary basis from which to enter into a lasting trading relationship. However, the Committee was quick to realise that good foreign relations do not automatically mean a profitable trading relationship. China is just as tough a trade negotiator as any other country, if not tougher. The biggest mistake for any person to make is to equate China's one billion population with a market that is hungry for foreign goods and services. On the contrary, China has produced and will continue to produce locally as many goods and services as possible and will consider the importation of only items deemed necessary for its continued economic development and modernisation. The report is at pains to stress that the successful entry into the China market will therefore depend not so much on a foreign firm's ability to engage in conventional importing and exporting, but rather on its ability to participate in the economic modernisation of China by way of joint ventures and co-operative trade. The Committee believes that the rewards are there but the Australian business community will have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of doing business with the People's Republic of China. This will be done only after critically assessing China's past economic achievements and the conditions under which China is prepared to allow foreign participation in certain sectors of its economy. Further China's commercial and trading system differs markedly from that of many of our traditional trading partners. Therefore it is necessary for any would-be trader to understand fully the subtle and not so subtle differences in negotiating styles. The Committee hopes that the compilation of this report will go a long way towards filling an information gap and thus prevent Australian firms from engaging in unproductive, frustrating and sometimes costly exercises which in the long run will only restrain rather than promote Australia's trading ties with China. The report as such does not contain a long list of recommendations. On the contrary, the Committee has made very few because it believes that more time is required to assess the effectiveness of policies which have recently been put into place. The Committee is also of the opinion that many of Australia's current trade policies and initiatives have not been fully utilised due mainly to a lack of understanding in the Australian business community with respect to the China market. Trade with China could double overnight as a result of an expansion of our existing trade with China. However, while new trade and investment prospects are possible, they are unlikely to have any impact in the short to medium term. It is therefore important to realise that no matter what new directions Australia's trade may take, our exports will continue to be dominated by raw materials such as wool, wheat, iron ore and other materials. A feature of trade with China which is quite common with trade with any centrally planned economy is the emphasis on seeking bilateral balances. To date , Australia has enjoyed a very favourable balance of trade with China. While this may be satisfactory from Australia's point of view, we must nevertheless acknowledge the right of China to develop markets for goods and services within Australia. The Committee is of the opinion that neither Australia nor China should become too preoccupied with the present trade imbalance. It believes that it is more important for all countries to pursue multilateral trade balances which offer greater prospects for trade. More importantly, the composition of trade between Australia and China rules out any possibility of achieving short to medium term trade balances. The vast majority of Australia's exports to China comprise much-needed raw materials. On the other hand, China, at its present stage of development, can offer only goods and services which are already available in Australia and/or are supplied by other countries. In other words, China's success in the Australian market place will depend on Australia's industry policy and her own ability to compete with other countries who are already exporting to Australia. It must also be pointed out that Australian firms will encounter similar obstacles in trying to export non-essential goods and services to China. We believe that in order to consolidate and expand Australia-China trade, we need to ensure that our industry and trade policies are clearly understood by China. Where there may be areas of misunderstanding, Australia should take immediate steps to clarify the situation so as to avoid unnecessary and prolonged misgivings about our preparedness to trade with China. As with any country, trade is inhibited by a number of factors. But the Committee believes they are not sufficient reason for Australian businesses to wait until some of them are improved. As I have already mentioned, barriers to trade exist between all countries and it is therefore important that Australians acknowledge that they exist and plan accordingly. If Australia does not introduce any new trade initiatives, Australia-China bilateral trade would probably continue at around $1 billion per annum. On the other hand, the Committee believes there is far greater potential to be realised from developing stronger trade and investment links with the People's Republic of China. In particular, I believe that this will be realised only if we pursue a more aggressive and flexible trade policy. In this regard, the Committee has acknowledged in its report that it is pleased to see that there are already signs that such a policy is underway in this market. In particular, the Committee compliments the Department of Trade on its China action plan which has adopted a more market-oriented and target-oriented approach to trade. While general trade initiatives and policies are required, the Committee believes that the development of specific country action plans will provide the necessary mechanism to establish and consolidate a lasting presence in that market. One note of concern the Committee did express in the report is the relationship between trade and aid. In recent years that relationship has become blurred. This has led to a situation whereby recipient countries have come to expect an aid package to form part of a commercial venture. Unfortunately, Australia has gone the way of most donor countries and developed aid programs to assist or complement commercial ventures. The Committee is concerned with this trend and believes that strict guidelines should be laid down in order to prevent aid programs from distorting normal commercial decisions and marketing arrangements. The Committee believes that this concern has also been spelt out in the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program which was tabled in this chamber at the end of the last session. The Committee believes that China will become one of the most important markets in our region even though at this stage the shape of this market is a little unclear. Australia, however, cannot afford to sit back and wait until the picture clarifies. I believe we must consolidate our position in this market now and be willing to modify that position as circumstances change. Australia is already regarded as an old and trusted friend and both the public and private sectors believe that China is very keen to do business with Australia. In order to translate that willingness into firm proposals, both the Government and the private sector will need to work with resolve and dedication in a spirit of co- operation and trust. Finally, Mr Deputy President, and speaking on my own behalf, I want to express my concern that the Committee's report is not as comprehensive as it could have been, or even as it should be. I believe that it is time this Parliament took stock of the entire committee system. It is time we looked at a range of issues which affect the effectiveness of those committees. One of those issues, I believe, is whether we expect them to bring reports before this Parliament which are meaningful and of assistance to industry as well as government. The area of most concern to me, and I believe to most of my Committee colleagues, was that during our hearings we were told many times of difficulties being experienced by Australian industries endeavouring to do business with China. Most of the obstacles appeared to be more obvious in China itself. I believe that it would have been of great benefit it us, and therefore industry and the Government, if we had been able to have at least a sub-committee visit the country. In making that statement I am well aware that the media may well treat it in their usual manner of parliamentarians wanting 'junkets' overseas. That is why I make these statements on my own behalf and leave the other members of the Committee to concur or otherwise. A measure of the maturity of the media in this country would be a recognition that the parliamentary committee system has to work in the interest of Australia as a whole. If this means that some assistance could be provided to industry and governments by having a committee travel, then so be it. I simply point out that this Parliament receives many visits each year from committees of other parliaments on fact-finding missions and to look at particular areas in Australia. We have not yet grown out of the habit of being more concerned with what the media might say than whether the activities of the committees will provide a much broader report to the Parliament and therefore greater assistance and benefit to the country as a whole. I hope that this Parliament will not delay much longer in making decisions which vitally affect the operations of committees. Mr Deputy President, I am sure you would agree that the effectiveness of a committee depends largely on the competency and capacity of its secretariat. It is therefore appropriate that I take this opportunity to record the Committee's appreciation of the work done by our Committee staff. Firstly, let me make specific mention of Mrs Eleanor Gilmour, our stenographer-secretary. Whilst Eleanor's personal contact with the Committee has been minimal she is one of a number of backroom people who service Senate committees in a steno-secretarial capacity. I thank her for the many hours, days, even weeks spent ensuring that every 'i' was dotted and every 't' crossed through what must have seemed like millions of background papers, drafts and re-drafts until the report was in the form in which I am presenting it to the Parliament today. Miss Sue Lowe joined our staff for a brief period at a time when nearly all of the public hearings had been concluded, but displayed her ability to appreciate quickly the direction of the inquiry and thus made a valuable contribution. She has now moved on to another area of the Department of the Senate. The Committee wishes her well in that position. I thank Mr David Brailey for the assistance he gave while he was with the Committee. He has now moved to the House of Representatives and we hope the transition will not be too difficult for him. We wish him well for his future there. Mr Gavan Cattanach is the only other member of the staff, apart from the Secretary and Eleanor Gilmour, who remained with the Committee during the entire inquiry. He demonstrated his ability not only to make sure that everyone got the right papers but also to have the right people in the right place at the right time. As I have said, this inquiry has not been an easy one insofar as we have had a number of changes with our staffing arrangements. However, it would have been an almost impossible one if we had not had the services of the Secretary, Mr Peter Keele. He displayed a tremendous ability to weather any situation that occurred and was genuinely concerned to ensure that every avenue was adequately explored. I am sure that when people read this report they will more fully appreciate the valuable contribution he has made. I am particularly concerned to record my appreciation for the assistance he has given me as Chairman. I commend the report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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, the eighty- second series, third report. I also table extracts from the Committee's minutes of proceedings. I seek leave to make a short statement relating to the report. Leave granted. Senator REID —This portion of the eighty-second series relates to the completion of the bicycle path around Lake Burley Griffin. Mr Deputy President, you will note when you read the report that the Committee agreed to a portion, but not to the whole, of the bicycle path as it passes through an area known as the Jerrabomberra Wetlands which has beome an important area for the aquatic system and birds which like to live in such environments. The Committee had serious reservations as to whether the proposed bicycle path was in the best interests of those who use the Wetlands. The Committee had another aspect of the proposed bicycle path in mind and that was the cost of maintaining it in that area. We felt that we needed to know more about the management, cost of management and funding that would be made available to the Department of Territories and Local Government to maintain what the National Capital Development Commission would provide. That was very much in the minds of members of the Committee when we declined to agree to the proposal. An important aspect is that if the Department is to manage developments in Canberra it should continue to receive the appropriate funds for the purpose. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Report I have just tabled reports on the final item in the 82nd Series of Variations to the City Plan and involves a proposal to construct the final section of the Lake cycleway from Kings Park via the Jerrabomberra Wetlands through to Barton. The proposed cycleway would cost approximately $1.35m. The Committee has given thorough scrutiny to this proposal, and has inspected the area and taken evidence. The focus of the Committee's attention was on the section of the proposed cycleway route through the Jerrabomberra Wetlands. The other sections of the cycleway appear to be largely uncontroversial and the Committee received no objections to these sections. The reason for the sensitivity of that part of the proposed cycleway route which goes through the Jerrabomberra Wetlands is the potential for disturbance of a very significant waterbird habitat. The Wetlands is the most important wetland habitat in the A.C.T. and interacts closely with other regional aquatic systems such as Lake George, Lake Bathurst, Googong Reservoir and Lake Ginninderra. It provides an important feeding, refuge and breeding environment for large numbers and species of resident and migrant waterbirds from as far away as Siberia and Japan. Fish and aquatic mammals such as platypus and water rat also form part of the Wetlands ecological system. The National Capital Development Commission, in proposing the suggested alignment of the cycleway, believed it had struck an appropriate balance between the construction of a cycleway which would have real recreational appeal, and the protection of the Wetlands as a waterbird habitat. A continuous moat would be constructed along the cycleway through the Wetlands to physically segregate the bird refuge area from the cycleway. Plantings would also be made to screen people using the cycle path from the waterbird areas thus reducing the extent of disturbance to the birds. Although the Department of Territories and Local Government supported the proposed cycleway as part of the 82nd Series of Variations, the Department had major reservations about the proposal. These reservations included the effect of the cycle path on the birdlife, ecology and planned environment of the Wetlands, the cost of maintenance of the cycleway, particularly because of the impact of flooding, and the priority of the cycleway as a recreational project. Objectors to the cycleway, including the Canberra Ornithologists Group, were concerned that the recreational and environmental objectives had not been properly balanced in the proposal. They believed that the cycleway was located too close to the core area of the Wetlands and would cause such disturbance to the waterbirds that the value of the Wetlands as an area of waterbird refuge would be significantly reduced. The moat was not seen as offering a sufficient buffer to ensure that there were no adverse environmental effects on the Wetlands. The Committee believes that the question of whether the cycleway should proceed as proposed by NCDC is ultimately a matter for judgment about where the balance should be struck between the accepted objectives of protecting the Wetlands as a significant waterbird habitat while allowing it to be developed as an important recreational resource. In the Committee's judgment, the disturbance created by the use of the cycleway as proposed would significantly impair the value of the Wetlands as a waterbird refuge area, possibly reducing the diversity of bird life in the Wetlands. However, the Committee also believes the completion of the cycleway around the Lake is an important project, and it is not convinced that an alternative alignment for the cycleway away from the core area of the Wetlands would not be appropriate. The Committee therefore approves the sections of the cycleway on the north side of the Lake and Molonglo River to the Dairy Flat Bridge, and to the south side of the lake from the proposed interpretation area to the junction with the existing cycleway at Wentworth Avenue, to which no objection was made. The Committee also recommends that NCDC, in consultation with DTLG and concerned community groups (particularly Canberra Ornithologists Group), develop an agreed alternative route away from the sensitive western area of the Wetlands for the remaining section of the cycleway which the Committee does not approve, and submit another variation proposal to the Committee. The Committee is also interested in the wider planning, development and management aspects of the Wetlands and this report makes recommendations about future planning and management of the Wetlands including developing a Policy and Development Plan, drawing up a management plan, and ultimately gazetting the Wetlands as a wildlife reserve. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Scott: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.54) —The evaluation of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, part 1 is a very useful document. I will refer to some of the recommendations in the report because I think they are very important, particularly the appointment of the professional head of the service and the permanent tenure of the counselling staff. Many of the staff have been working in a particularly difficult area. The service is a temporary organisation and it has temporary staff. It is not a 9 to 5 job. The counselling staff who work with the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. More often than not they are called out at night to assist in all sorts of problematic areas. Sometimes counselling staff are called to domestic problems at home, sometimes to watchhouse, sometimes to intervene in a whole range of problems, or sometimes they are called by a distraught wife to talk to her husband who has had a breakdown. I know of no other group of public servants who are under so much intense psychological pressure from the group of people with whom they are dealing and who give so much of themselves. I think anybody who has been connected with or who knows of the counselling service in his own city knows that those people have done much above and beyond any call that their duty has on them. The idea that the Government has and the acceptance of the recommendation for making permanent the tenure of the counselling staff is an excellent move. I think it shows first of all the appreciation that they ought to be made permanent. The appointment of a professional head undoutedly will assist the counsellors in the service in their communication with one another and in their professional development. However, I refer to the list that is contained in the report that suggests the criteria that might be used for the selection of counsellors. I hope it is not intended-although no caveat is in the report-that that list will be the one which is used when the current staff are made permanent. I know a number of the counsellors who have worked long and hard in those positions who could not fulfill all of those requirements. I believe there is one other requirement that is not listed and which ought to be listed-it would certainly mean that those people who are currently employed in the Service could be made permanent-and that is some experience in the area of counselling Vietnam veterans. It is odd that it has been omitted because it puts at a disadvantage the people who are currently occupying those positions, particularly if they do not fulfill the academic qualifications which are laid down in part 1 of the report. The only other comment I make in the limited time that is available to me is a disquiet I have, having read through the whole of the report, that if all of the recommendations in the report are accepted we may have an over-bureaucratisation of that service. There is recommendation upon recommendation on forms, data sheets, logs and so on. That might be appropriate in some other areas but it is not appropriate in this area. Keeping good records is very useful but if the extensive types of records which are suggested in the report are the ones which will be kept, it is not the counsellors who will have to do the work. I am not sure whether they will ever get out of the paper work and on to the work they will be employed to do. I hope that in accepting these recommendations the Government will be mindful that this counselling service, as it was established by the previous Government and as it has operated under the current Government, is meant specifically to help people, not to generate more paper. Counsellors cannot do the detailed type of work that is contained in so many of these recommendations as well as help people. Other than that, I believe that the recommendations will improve the service only if they are dealt with in a sympathetic way. They will enable it to continue. I hope that over a period-it may not be for a number of years-the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service will slowly change, as indeed the counsellors tell me it is changing, into a veterans counselling service. We still have problems with a number of other engagements. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.00) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report is a medium for providing additional information to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's triennial report. One of the problems that was identified was that the work load of the office has increased considerably due to the new government guidelines for the Commission for 1984. The situation was serious enough for the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Commission to agree to a review of office staffing and structure in order to maintain effective secretariat services to the Commission and to the councils. In the area of higher education the project entitled 'Learning and Earning', which commenced in October 1982, was followed in June 1983 by a joint Commission and council working party paper which was published in November 1983. This was important and significant in that it examined the higher education needs in outer Sydney and Melbourne. I would have hoped that that type of survey could have been very much more extensive. As to the worth of the document, given that its function is to provide additional information the report could have done more than merely summarise the routine Commission activities. At most it identifies concerns without expanding on them. For example, it gives only an internal perspective when it reports that the Resources Policy Branch continues to monitor and analyse trends in tertiary education participation. In fact no startling features are identified, nor are any particularly disadvantaged groups even mentioned as problems to be redressed . I think it is unfortunate, since further education is continually criticised for its predominantly middle-class participation and for its Anglo-Saxon orientation, given the dramatic increase in the intake of overseas students who naturally are used to different lifestyles, cultural and social values et cetera . I think it is good that the Commission is taking the Freedom of Information Act seriously. An officer has been appointed and has attended a seminar on the interpretation and operations of the Act. The Commission seems to have dealt satisfactorily with all its requests under the Freedom of Information Act. However, there is one problem. This report states that one request was refused because 'its release could cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State'. I think this is significant. Once again the issue is not elaborated upon, yet two inadequacies are evident. First, must the person requesting the information under the Act accept per se such a blanket excuse as the one I have mentioned for access denial although, granted, there is redress through the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office provided one can meet certain requirements? Secondly, there is an evident need to educate the people about the Freedom of Information Act. In terms of the gamut of its operations, how much can we expect to be released under these sorts of circumstances? Naturally there are criticisms and these criticisms cannot be aimed exclusively at the Commission. However, there is no reason why the impetus for increasing public awareness could not begin here. I think congratulations must go to the new appointees and to Emeritus Professor D. N. F. Dunbar for his reappointment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to say a few words about this very excellent Tasmanian institution. Of course, the Australian Maritime College was founded for the maritime trade. As the maritime trade declined, because of the coastal trade decline, fishing courses were married to the courses being run at the Maritime College. The problem about this college, as it has been explained to me, is that the courses are very sophisticated. As one fisherman who has been through the college said: 'It was like going to university before primary school'. I certainly do not want to denigrate this excellent institution but I believe there is a need for another college so that fishermen can learn the basics. Let me put it this way: Before we teach fishermen how to operate computers I think we should teach them how to use calculators. In Queensland I am very well known by the fishermen and by the industry. It is my understanding that the fishermen in Queensland have a very basic education and they do not understand the sophistication of this college. Senator Grimes —That is what is wrong with the fishing industry. Senator BOSWELL —The Minister for Social Security has just said that that is what is wrong with the fishing industry. Of course that is what is wrong with the fishing industry. I take up and accept the Minister's interjection. Fishermen are basic people. They do not have a degree such as that of the Minister. Senator Grimes —They don't need one. Senator BOSWELL —They do. The 'flying by the seat of your pants' attitude might have been all right in the old days but it is certainly not all right at the moment. Some fishermen in Queensland are in charge of boats costing up to $300, 000 yet they probably have only a fourth grade or fifth grade education. These are the people who need to be taught business principles and- Senator Grimes —I am not arguing with you. Senator BOSWELL —I am sorry, I thought that the Minister said that they did not need any education. Of course, with the increase in the 200-mile zone fishing is becoming a greater business. These fishermen need to be educated further. I believe that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has provided some $2m in the Budget to open a college in Bundaberg. The Queensland Government has provided a school right on the banks of the Burnett River. It is the intention of the fishing industry that this college be used to complement the Tasmanian Maritime College so the fishermen will get- Senator Peter Rae —The Australian Maritime College. Senator BOSWELL —I am sorry, the Australian Maritime College. The Bundaberg college will teach basic business principles, net manufacture, marine motor maintenance and radio maintenance and, the Tasmanian college will be used for greater or higher degrees. I believe that there is also a need for a fishing college associated with subtropical waters where different species of fish and crustaceans are caught from those that are caught in the temperate fishing waters of Tasmania. I think the Bundaberg college and the Australian Maritime College can work together and complement each other. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.09) —I commend the report on the Australian Maritime College. I do so with a degree of self-interest as I was privileged to be the Minister who inaugurated the college. It is true that it was a bipartisan matter. Indeed, both the concept and the decision on location were bipartisan. Senator Peter Rae —I wouldn't entirely agree with that. They were put forward by some and taken up by others. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —That is right. Having been somewhat the accoucheur of the college I have read the report with particular interest. What I want to do at the outset in my limited time is record my tribute, and I think that of the Senate, to the retiring Chairman, Tom Swanson. Tom Swanson is a great Australian and that fact should be recorded. He was very distinguished in his own chemical industry. He was Chairman of the Commission on Advanced Education in its early days. He was the inaugural chairman of the Maritime College and he has gone on to the full Council. On behalf of us all I say thank you to someone who has made a very great contribution to education in Australia and who has been the founding father of the college. I understand the eagerness of those honourable senators who want to speak on this matter, particularly the Tasmanian senators. It is exciting to note from the report that some 546 students are now enrolled in the college. This was envisaged, but some thought it was optimistic. I also want to pay a tribute to the teaching staff and those who are on the Council, all of whom I think have done a first class job. I was interested in Senator Boswell's remarks. The college trains people in seamanship from every aspect, from the most sophisticated to the least sophisticated, and includes the fishing industry. Australia is a great maritime nation with a littoral longer than virtually any other nation, lapping into three or four great oceans. It is to our great shame that we have not developed our skills in the maritime field, that we have not exploited the fishing industry, and this now is one of the great steps forward. In my view in time it will be of international status. I am delighted that it has received its major simulator so that it can, in fact, simulate the navigation bridge of vessels and can train in upper deck navigation. Of course, it must also have engine room simulators and various other technologies. I am very well aware of the eagerness of the people of Bundaberg to develop a subsidiary training college for fishing. I have indeed been taken willingly to possible venues for such a college which need to be investigated by the Government. I recognise that the tropical and semi-tropical fields offer particular challenges that others might not. I believe the two can work together . Australia needs to develop its industries and increase its production. No industry has more potential than the deep sea fishing industry. Sadly for us, other nations, particularly Russia, Japan, Taiwan and Korea, have gone farther ahead. We have tended to think small. We need to think big. We need to think about sophistication and skills. I am excited that this journey has come so far. I commend all those who are associated with it. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(6.13) —I would like to comment on some of the matters which have been raised by Senator Sir John Carrick. I support what he had to say about the people who are formally associated with the Australian Maritime College and its Council, particularly the important role that Mr Swanson played in the establishment of the college. In these early years some difficulties had to be overcome in getting the college under way. Whilst Senator Sir John Carrick somewhat modestly said that the college will achieve international status, let me say that it has achieved international status. The seminar held last year titled 'Sea Survival 83' was attended by people around the world and was a major international event. I think it is very much to the credit of Captain Waters and others that it has been able to achieve such eminence and status so quickly. It is a high standard college. It is not intended to be a low-grade establishment in any way whatsoever. It does teach all sorts of courses. Senator Boswell apparently did not understand that whilst it has some very sophisticated courses on the fishing industry, it also has some very unsophisticated courses. It is important to look at the very wide variety of courses which are offered which include everything from very short courses to seminars. Short courses are conducted in South Australia and Victoria, in conjunction with training voyages of the Bluefin; at Beachport and Port Lincoln, in echo sounding and sonar; at Portland, in pelagic trawling; at Brisbane, Bundaberg, Townsville and Cairns, in echo sounding and trawl gear. These are all short courses conducted by the Australian Maritime College during the last year. In June and July a two-week voyage was undertaken to Port Lincoln, Kangaroo Island and Portland and year one certificate students participated in the voyage and carried out fishing exercises in South Australian waters. In late August Bluefin returned to Portland with year three certificate students. The report also refers to further visits to other waters. Senator Boswell made the point that the Bluefin needs to be located where there is warmer water. The fact is that it is located in the most central position in Australia. It is capable of travelling to the various types of water, from the more temperate zone to the more tropical zone, to give experience of those different types of water. The next point I make is that we would have had a further development of the fishing course of the type that Senator Boswell appears to be referring to had it not been for the fact that this Government chose to reject the proposal which was put forward by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. This would have involved the expenditure of $500,000, if my memory serves me correctly, in the first year, that is, the current year, and a further $500,000 and $1 million in the other years of the triennium. It was extremely unfortunate that that was one of the things that did not take place. Unfortunately, it was one of the cuts that were made from the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission. I hope that that matter can still go forward and be reconsidered. It is an extremely important part of the development of Australian fisheries that better training is available for those involved in the fishing industry. I completely agree with Senator Boswell on that matter. The fisheries need to be developed in various ways. There are a whole lot of sides to the industry, from the food science side, the highly technical side of the skills associated with the higher levels of fishing, particularly long off-shore fishing and even perhaps developing to krill fisheries and that type of thing, to the smaller individual fisherman who perhaps requires different types of courses. I simply refer Senator Boswell and any other honourable senators who are interested to Appendix 3, volume one of the report which sets out at pages 37 and 38 all the courses which are available. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.18) —I support the remarks of my colleagues Senators Sir John Carrick and Rae. I draw the Senate's attention to the role that has been played by a number of senators on both sides of the chamber. Again, I specifically mention Senators Rae and Sir John Carrick. At the same time I must also mention the role played by the honourable member for Bass, the Hon. Kevin Newman. I comment tonight principally on some of the remarks by our Queensland colleague because I believe that he has got some incorrect impressions. Those incorrect impressions were not gained as a result of a personal visit to the Australian Maritime College at either of its major establishments or as a result of travelling on one of the many sophisticated fishing vessels, principally the Bluefin, but as the result of an off the cuff remark by a fisherman. As my colleague Senator Rae has mentioned, the college offers a wide range of facilities and courses, some very short and others very much more sophisticated and at the top level. What the previous speakers have mentioned is quite correct . The Australian fishing industry does need a major upgrading. It does require a greater degree of sophistication. We cannot allow this industry to stay in the dark ages; it must be uplifted. It is true that there are some very sophisticated techniques. I was present at the opening of the flume tank, which is one of the best in the world. In its sophistication it enables the most humble fisherman to learn how better to set his nets. It shows the ordinary fisherman, be he from Mackay or from Oyster Cove, how to set his nets relative to different forms of currents, to the actions of waves and to the actions of the sea. Not only can this save the fisherman a lot of money in trawling but also it can greatly increase his catch. This is what the college is all about. My colleagues have already said that Australia has not in the past done quite as well as a number of other countries. The establishment of this college was to help rectify this. The downturn in the maritime industry was mentioned. This does not really have a major impact on this college. It is significant, but it will not wreck the college. What is important is that there are other institutions or other developments, for instance, the Royal Australian Navy, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian Customs Service. All these bodies are sending people to this college because of its value to them and their enterprises. The Customs Service has fellows going out in boats. Their lives are at risk. They have to perform an important duty in stopping the drug trade and this is often done in hazardous conditions. Their survival depends upon their ability to handle boats in different conditions. I suggest that honourable senators opposite go down to Beauty Point to see some of the operations there or go out to Newnham and see the sophisticated pool, the sorts of equipment there and how best to use the equipment. So often, fishermen and other mariners go out to sea inadequately prepared in relation to the aids that are now available. This provides a focal point where people are encouraged to come from all over Australia and, as Senator Rae said, from all over the world now, because of its sophistication. I take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation for the lead this college has given under the direction of Captain Waters. It is growing. I believe it has a great future and it has a very wide use within the maritime industry of Australia. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.23) —I should like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Peter Rae and Senator Watson in respect of this matter. For Senator Boswell's benefit I point out to him and to anybody else who is interested that the report sets down quite clearly the powers and the functions of the Australian Maritime College and the aims and objectives of the Council. I think the answer to what Senator Boswell has raised is on page 9 of the report of the college wherein it talks about enrolments. It states: Full-time enrolments at the College show a significant growth from 325 in 1982 to 546 in 1983, and it is anticipated that some 650 full-time students will be enrolled in 1984. This increase in 1983 and 1984 has been achieved despite reduced enrolments in cadet entry courses for trainee deck and engineer officers in the shipping industry. It is confidently expected that there will be a further significant growth in enrolments for 1985-87. I say to Senator Boswell that in contrast to the low first year enrolments in the cadet industry courses there has been a marked increase in enrolments in the fisheries courses. Demand for places on the certificate of technology course in the fisheries operations has grown to such an extent that it is planned in 1984 to have two intakes, one in July as well as the usual intake in March. I concur with what Senator Watson has said and I think tribute should be paid to the honourable member for Bass, Mr Newman. Senator Boswell may come from Queensland and he may be a very good prawner. He tried the raw prawn; he has drawn the crabs. I am happy to be one of the crabs. I do not intend to get crabby about it , though. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(6.25) —by leave-My remarks will be brief. The report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission is of some 420 pages. I had something to do with its original initiation. It has taken some two and a half years to produce. That is the measure of its magnitude. Its magnitude is such that it will take a very considerable time indeed for full consideration to the given to it. That is further aggravated by the fact that the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) himself has pointed to the fact that the report points up a number of major challenges. I read three paragraphs of the Minister's statement: The Commission's territorial assessments indicate that some functions were provided at a higher level than in the standard states and that the Australian Capital Territory's revenue effort was below standard. The assessments in relation to municipal functions indicate a below standard level of service compared with the standard councils. He goes on to say: The Commission has serious reservations about the accuracy of the data and the usefulness of its current assessments in allocating financial responsibility between the Commonwealth and the Australian Capital Territory community. He goes on further to point out the difficulties and the need to recommend. He then says that an interdepartmental committee will be set up of various departments to recommend appropriate classification criteria for national, territorial and municipal revenue and expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory. If this points to anything it points to the absolute need for major time to be given first for that work to be done and secondly for the people of this Parliament and the people of the Australian Capital Territory to digest this report fully and to digest what comes out of the interdepartmental committee. Until this is done it would be quite wrong and quite improper for any government to move for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. We already know the nature of the polls that were taken in the Territory and, indeed, the strong opposition by the Territory people to enforced self- government. There is no way in which a Federal government can itself reach such a policy conclusion and there is no way in which it can get a reaction from the Australian Capital Territory until all this information is known. This information will take many months to gather. Indeed, the report of the intergovernmental committee no doubt ought to be considered again by the Grants Commission. I am stressing the need for this Government to understand that it would be utterly wrong, if an election were to be held and if by mischance the Government were re-elected, to force self-government on the people of the Australian Capital Territory first of all against their will and secondly without the full knowledge of the facts being drawn out. Nobody knows them at the moment. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has admitted the gaps in its own knowledge and the Government has admitted it by admitting the need for an interdepartmental committee. I therefore stress the fact that it would be utterly wrong for a government to proceed in any way towards self-government until all these matters were known. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(8.00) —I move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to address the needs of the aged and notes that the Government- (a) has failed to establish an Office of Aged Care as promised during the 1983 election; (b) has failed to raise pensions to 25 per cent as promised during the 1983 election; and (c) has consistently attacked the income security of the aged through a means test on the over-70's pension, an assets test on all pensioners, and the introduction of a savage new tax on lump sum superannuation. In the document known as 'Labor Profile' of June 1984, published by the Labor Resources Centre in Carlton, an article headed 'Aged Pensioners' states: Labor's record in government between 1972 and 1975 is evidence of our commitment to the dignity, independence and care of our retired and elderly citizens. As disclosed in 'Labor Profile' of June 1984, the author of that document is the present Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Something must have happened between 1975 and 1983, because I must remind the Senate that that document is dated June 1984. It comes as something of a surprise to read that the Government is apparently sticking to the claim that between 1972 and 1975 it demonstrated some mortgage on compassion for the people of Australia, especially the pensioners. It has put the pensioners of Australia through the mill of the over-70s pension test, the incomes test and the assets test, which it has not yet totally explained to the Australian people, and the lump sum superannuation tax, all of which took place during the last 12 months. The Government's claim reads in an ambiguous way when one considers the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Hon. R. J. Hawke, at the recent meeting of the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The Prime Minsiter claimed in the presence of all at the meeting, when matters about the poor were brought up by Mr John Mackenzie, who is the current President of the Australian Council of Social Service, that the poor and their arguments were irrelevant and that the issues raised by Mr Mackenzie and the Australian Council of Social Service were not matters of economic value which needed consideration by that august body. That statement demonstrates this Government's concern and compassion for the aid and care that should be given to our elderly. The statement characterises every action with respect to the elderly that the Government has taken since coming to power in March 1983. Never has there been such a catalogue of broken promises with regard to the elderly. It was promised that no assets test would be introduced for the over 70s. There was actually a promise that no income test would be introduced for the over 70s. Yet both measures have been introduced. Specific promises were made that there would be no tax on lump sums for superannuation purposes, yet a savage tax of 31 per cent has been introduced since the Labor Party came to power. Those measures, along with inaction in areas in which the Labor Party made positive promises, demonstrate that the Government has failed to attend to the problems of the aged. One of the most significant areas of concern surrounds the question of the assets test. That test has caused unknown problems for the community. Let us catalogue a few of the steps along the way in that episode of disaster. First, the Government announced the assets test in the Budget Speech in August 1983. It claimed that it would raise some $300m for the benefit of the most needy in the community. The Government failed to explain what it intended to do with the assets test, except to say that it had that broad general principle in mind. In fact, what the Government deviously had in mind was to allocate in some way the $300m that the Government was intending to spend to the most needy in the community. The point is that the Government failed to demonstrate how it would raise the $ 300m. The Government knows as well as we do that it had no idea about how much money would be raised as a result of applying the assets test at that time. As we have since found out, the assets test provisions were full of anomalies and were likely to create more difficulties. Apart from anything else, the provisions would obviously lead to exploitation by people inclined to do so and, consequently, probably cost a great deal more than the amount that would be raised to benefit the most needy. The series of disasters that occurred last year was finally brought to a halt during February this year when the Prime Minister suddenly decided that we would have an investigation of the assets test. The Government therefore set up the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test and brought in community representatives to examine the matters affecting the assets test. It is important to note that the Gruen Panel's terms of reference were not designed to enable the Panel to form an opinion on whether or not an assets test was good but to enable the Panel to decide on the form of the assets test. Bearing in mind that the Panel's fundamental decision was made on the grounds that the test would assist the most needy in the community and bearing in mind the arguments that there would be an enormous increase in the number of people requiring assistance, which somehow had to be limited as time went by, the Gruen Panel came down with three specific statements decrying the arguments at the base of the Government's justification of the assets test. First, the Assets Test Review Panel said that up to the year 2015 or thereabouts, the so-called greying rate of the population of Australia would not increase faster than the rate of growth of the economy as a whole and consequently, it would be expected that the accommodation and assistance offered to those people could be met within our normal economic growth rate. Secondly, the Panel said that those in the pensioner age group at this time, who had lived their working lives during the period of the Great Depression and the Second World War would not have as adequate personal finances as those who live in the future. They would, therefore, be in greater need generally than those who will retire after the year 2015, and who, obviously, will have lived through far more prosperous times . That group of people would have had a greater number of opportunities to accumulate assets so as to be able to look after themselves in retirement. Thirdly, the Gruen Committee said: 'If there is an increase in the average age of the Australian population, it is logical to assume that if there is a growing number at the older end of that category there must be a lesser number at the younger end, and consequently there will be savings in expenditures in that area by governments'. Taking those three points together, it is clear that the Gruen Committee denied the basis upon which the Government formed its decision to institute an assets test. Is it any wonder that the Government saw fit to reduce the proposed assets test to the squib that it now represents, where it claims that it may get $45m, I think, as a result of the introduction of the assets test, and that there will be substantial outgoings in the first place in order to establish that test, of about $30m in the first year? Is that a proper basis for consideration? To be most charitable to the Government and the Minister, one must say that it is clear that from the outset with the assets test, with the income test and with the tax on lump sum superannuation, nowhere did the Government set down its objectives and make them clear to the people. (Quorum formed) I am so glad that Senator Robert Ray saw fit to bring in Government senators to listen to these points about the assets test. I shall refer to one other matter while I have a captive audience-the tax on lump sum superannuation. We all know that that tax was somehow justified in terms of tax equity. That has become the new catch-cry of the present Government. We have seen it introduced in respect of wine in the last day or so, and it has been claimed that somehow the Opposition supports silvertails because it supports a wine industry in many of the States of Australia. The point in respect of lump sum superannuation is that it has been argued by the Government that somehow people who get their superannuation in the form of a lump sum have a tax advantage over those who receive their superannuation in the form of a pension. That argument is based on a proposition that was included in the Budget statements in 1983: That there was expenditure of $2.48 billion on tax concessions for superannuation funds. In this year's Budget Papers I notice the inclusion of a similar figure-$2.6 billion. After all the exposure to argument in this place and before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare inquiry into retirement income systems, I should have thought that the Government would have seen fit to recognise the force of the Opposition's argument that that figure is totally fallacious. The Treasury has acknowledged the shortcomings of that figure. It is well documented in the transcripts of evidence given to the retirement income inquiry that the figure is wrong. The figure has obviously been included in the documents by the Government to bolster its case that somehow lump sum superannuation is some kind of tax rip off in the community. I point out just one factor, Mr Acting Deputy President-I am glad that you are occupying the chair at the moment, because you know so well the force of this argument and you will acknowledge it. That figure of $2.48 billion as quoted last year should be significantly reduced because it fails to take account of the tax generated to the Government as a result of investment income generated by the investment of those lump sums. That is estimated to be about $1 billion or more. Consequently, one must consider the figure included in Treasury documents as being much lower than that $2.48 billion, and probably about $1 billion. The point I make is that although the Government argues that somehow occupational superannuation schemes are reducing Australia's capacity to meet its obligations to the old that is not so. The Government is merely fixing the books to show, according to its own bent ideology, that that is so. It is wrong, and it needs to be exposed as such. There seems to me to be absolutely no difference between a lump sum received on superannuation which results from the sweat of a man's brow as an employee and the situation of a self-employed person who, by the sweat of his brow, builds up an asset in the capital of his business , sells that goodwill-be it in a milk round or a newsagency-consequently receiving the benefit of that and, because there is no capital gains tax in this country, pays no tax on it. Yet this Government wants to tax lump sum superannuation which results from employment. I do not accept that argument at all. It should not be put forward. Nevertheless, all these things represent a direct attack on the elderly and an attempt by the Government to justify its inadequacies and, perhaps, its shortcomings in its advice. Let us look at the question of the Office of Aged Care. During the election campaign last year the present Government promised that it would institute an Office of Aged Care, presumably to take over the role of looking after and offering assistance to the aged in many different ways; presumably, to offer services in various co-ordinating ways, and so on. We have seen absolutely no action on this matter. The community has been waiting with bated breath to hear in this latest Budget which might happen in that area; but again, silence. We hear rumours that the Office of Aged Care may be set up in the Department of Health. That has caused enormous concern in the community, and I hope that the Minister for Social Security has already had that drawn to his attention. The question of some kind of merger between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health in this area has been suggested, but again there has been no action, and not even a statement has emerged from this Minister or the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), or even the Prime Minister, to clarify the situation. Rumour has it that it may turn up in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from now on; but again, we have had no clarification of the matter. If ever there was a document in which we might have expected that, it was the one handed down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Tuesday night; but of course, we got nothing. Never was there a clearer example of the difference between this Labor Government's philosophy and the Liberal-National Party philosophy in the area of aged care than in the current debate about retirement income. The Opposition stands to encourage people to provide for themselves by saving through their working lives. Our policy is directly opposite to that of the Government. We seek to encourage people through tax incentives and the removal of impediments in the social security system to build up their own assets during their working lives so that they can put aside money for their retirement. The present Government has exactly the opposite objective. It seeks to reduce the assets which people are able to accumulate and does so by taxation and the imposition of assets tests which are direct impediments to people to look after themselves and to build up assets during their working lives. By penalising thrift, the Labor Government is reducing people's capacity to look after themselves in their later years. We see a total difference of philosophy between the Opposition and the Government in this area. We make that clear, as a matter of policy. This Government stands to encourage people to become dependent on government. We stand to encourage people to become independent of government. For that reason we have brought forward this motion to talk particularly about the measures entered into by the Government in the last few months and to raise the question of the promises which it has failed to honour since coming to office in 1983. The Government's excuse for the failure to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings no doubt will be made on the grounds that there are inadequate resources to achieve that at present and that the Government's objective is to achieve economic stability. If that be so, we must acknowledge that the Government has made an attempt to raise the pension by 35c on the single basic rate, towards that objective. It has acknowledged the Opposition's claim that pensioners should receive compensation for the cost of medi-fiddle- that is, the cost of the reduction in the CPI by the Medicare adjustment, and, consequently, has made some small adjustment of 35c in favour of the pensioners. I imagine that most pensioners are very pleased with that, but one has to make a comparison. There has been a tax cut in the Budget of $7.60 per week for low income earners, that is, those earning up to about $12,000 a year, with a reducing impact for those over that figure. But for people in our circumstances who earn about $700 or $800 a week the benefit is $2.79 a week. That is the tax cut to which we are entitled. I acknowledge that the Government has scaled down that rate of tax benefit as we approach higher incomes, but I wonder how the pensioner will feel when he receives not even an increase of $2.79 a week but a $2.40 increase as a result of this Budget. In fact, people on $40,000 have a greater benefit from this Budget than have the pensioners. Senator Grimes —No wonder you came into Parliament and gave away accountancy. Senator MESSNER —Is that not a key point to acknowledge? If the Minister fails to acknowledge it, one knows that the people in the community acknowledge it. I conclude my argument on the point with which I started. Somehow along the way the Government has lost its compassion for the elderly, and yet still seeks to glorify its past achievements in this area by claiming in so-called propaganda documents such as 'Labor Profile', that its objectives are still the same. Those objectives are no longer clear, if they ever were. They have certainly been muddled as a result of the activities of the last 12 months. All we can say about this Government's activities is that not only has it created enormous confusion among the retired and the elderly but also it has led to misunderstanding as to the Government's intentions. If that be so, it is clear that the Government has opened the way to an alternative approach in this area. The country will get that alternative in the next few months. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(8.26) —I expected in this debate to hear some Australian Labor Party senators defending their Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) on this motion of Senator Messner's. However, it would appear that in common with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) all the Minister's back benchers have deserted him once again. The Opposition, on behalf of all those people who were deceived by the Prime Minister prior to the last election, is taking the Government to task for dishonouring all its promises. I am sure that the Minsiter for Social Security will remember the heady days of the Hawke election promises. They filled pages and pages of the papers. Indeed, the Age published a cartoon representing Mr Hawke as the original pied piper leading the Australians down the garden path. Like the pied piper, it was all a hoax and Australians are just beginning to understand that. The broken promises were justified, according to Mr Hawke, by the biggest lie of them all. I refer to the shocking deceit perpetrated by Mr Hawke on the supposed $9.6 billion deficit, a figure concocted and repeated so often that Senator Cook when he first came to this place swallowed his leader's own propaganda and unintentionally misled the Senate. He believed that we had left the Government with a deficit of $9.6 billion. Later Senator Cook apologised to the Senate and said he did not understand the position. He believed his own side's propaganda. It had been repeated by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and every other Labor spokesman so often that Labor candidates believed the falsehoods they were told. This is another Budget, and in the past week more promises have been made to be broken. It is typical of the Hawke Government that this motion once again deals with broken promises. Those broken promises affect those who are least able to fight back, the aged people. I quote from a couple of Mr Hawke's statements prior to the election, as contained in ALP policy statements. He said in one of those statements: 'I am not in the business and the Labor Party is not in the business of making promises that cannot be fulfilled'. What a hoax and a joke. Mr Hawke continued: 'But the sensible thing to do is to make sure that the commitments you make are ones that are not going to have to be broken'. The credibility of the Prime Minister, with his broken promises and the sorts of statements I have quoted, has to be understood by the people, and indeed is being understood. Let us examine what he did promise the elderly, the aged pensioners, in his first term of office. He promised to raise the basic pension to 25 per cent of average male earnings and to continue to raise it by indexation. Next, he promised not to reduce pensions. We can all remember, as I am sure you do Mr Acting Deputy President, when Mr Fraser said the pensioners would be better off hiding their savings under the bed than trusting Mr Hawke. Nobody on the Government benches has yet been big enough to apologise to Mr Fraser and tell him that he was quite right. Immediately the Labor party came to power the $52 was taken away from those over 70 years of age. A means test was slapped on and they lost $52. An assets test was next introduced-not just one but we had Mark 1 , Mark 2, Mark 3 and Mark 4. I am not sure what we are up to now but the assets tests were changed as regularly as the average bloke changes his socks. We were then told that the Hawke Government would lift the tax threshold of pensioners by $465 to $5,893. Again, what a dreadful hoax this was. The pensioners were told that their pensions would be adjusted on the basis of the immediately prior six month consumer price index movements to cut out the present lag of four months to one month. Again, what a dreadful hoax. Pensioners also were told that the great Labor Government would establish an office of aged care, but again not a thing was done. On top of all that, pensioners were also told that their superannuation would not be taxed. We all know what happened to that. We also had a Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 3 and Mark 4 of the superannuation debacle. Let us look at each of those areas separately. I mention first the promise to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average male earnings and to continue to raise them in line with indexation. That has not occurred. We are now up to 23.5 per cent, not 25 per cent as promised in the first term. As we have been promised an election any day there is obviously no intention of raising pensions to the 25 per cent level. As Senator Messner has just indicated the only contribution towards attempting that raise is a 35c increase. That amount of 35c is what is left from the $2.50 given in this Budget when we do away with the $2.15 of the Medicare fiddle. Senator Grimes acknolwedged that in Question Time today. He said that yes, there was a $2.15 extra cost attributed to pensioners for Medicare and that therefore, pensioners had got just 35c out of that claim of Mr Hawke's that the pensions would reach 25 per cent of average male earnings. We come now to the assets test. The Government said that it was not going to interfere with pensions. As I mentioned Mr Fraser said that it would be better for pensioners to hide the money under the bed. It certainly would have been. Money was pinched from the over-70-year-olds to the amount of $52, means-tested. It would have been so simple to say that only those turning 70 years from that time on would have to be means tested. But no, the Government took the money from those who already had it. The Government took the money from those who had planned for the rest of their retirement years. Those plans have now been destroyed. As I said we then had the various assets tests. These interfered with all the planning of the pensioners. I believe that is quite a despicable action. The aged pensioners are the only sector that now has death duties. The Gruen Assets Test Review Panel report actually stated that. Professor Gruen actually said that we could call them death duties if we liked. That is a pretty clear description. He said: 'It doesn't worry me if you call it death duties'. He believed that that was a fairly accurate description. What is this saving the taxpayers? We are not saving a cent this year. Indeed, it is a cost because we have to pay all those investigators going around checking on pensioners making sure that their assets are well under the limit that they are permitted. We are told that not only will their ordinary assets such as their car, the contents of their house and anything else they may possess be included but also their life insurance policies will be classified at surrender value and counted as an additional asset. That is a good one! We then have the next promise to lift the tax threshold to $5,893. Not only has that not been carried out but there is also a double tax after the amount of $5, 533 is reached. The pensioners not only pay the usual tax on every dollar over that amount but pay the additional 12.5 per cent of their rebate. It is not just a matter of having reached that tax threshold but also a matter of double taxation. We then come to the promise to adjust pensions on the basis of the six months immediately prior to the consumer price index movement to overcome the present lag of four months that Mr Hawke was complaining about. At present as we all know there is automatic twice-yearly adjustment in May and November to cover for loss through inflation over that period. The May adjustment covers inflation for the six months from July to December of the previous year. As the Prime Minister said there is a lag of four months which he promised to do away with. He has not. The May payment should take into account the six months ending in April. That promise has again been ignored completely. No attempt has been made. The same situation, of course, applies to the November adjustment. I now move to the promise to establish an office of aged care. It was all just rhetoric. There is a considerable overlap between the departments and the pensioners who have asked for some time for an office of aged care. The Government, Mr Hawke and indeed, Senator Grimes, promised that. Again that promise has been ignored. Next the Government promised it would not tax superannuation savings. The Government said: 'People have made their sacrifices all through their working lives and we won't touch it'. In the Australian Financial Review of 18 April 1983 it was stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has confirmed that there will be no increase in the tax rate for lump superannuation payments. This statement was made following the economic summit. I am sure all honourable senators remember that wonderful economic summit when the Government conned unions and employers into sitting in the other chamber. They all came and Mr Hawke said that all the promises would be carried out because he and the Labor Party were not in the business, as he said, 'of making promises that cannot be fulfilled'. He was not going to have his credibility interfered with. He said: What the sensible thing to do is to make sure that the commitments you make are ones that are not going to have to be broken. The Government conned the Summit. Following the Summit the Australian Financial Review stated: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has confirmed that there will be no increase in the tax rate for lump superannuation payments. There has been considerable speculation that the Government intended to increase the rate after deciding to restrict the level of superannuation payouts for federal politicians. A speech by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to the National Economic Summit in which he referred to the tax advantage enjoyed by superannuation only seemed to fuel speculation. Senator Grimes has since said that his comments were misinterpreted. Mr Hawke said on Friday that comments he had made some weeks ago about the review of existing expenditure and taxation have been given a currency they did not deserve. I do not suppose that he said that either. It continues: He said there was 'no basis' for the speculation that the Government intended to raise the 5 per cent tax on lump payments. Mr Hawke privately told members of the ACTU last week that the Government would not move against the tax. That is not all. I have a letter from Captain Fitzsimmons of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots. He sent us a copy of a response from the Minister for Finance, John Dawkins. Get a load of this: Bob Hawke has asked me to reply to your letter concerning superannuation entitlements. We have no plans to alter the existing arrangements concerning lump sum superannuation schemes or the taxation of lump sum payments. Any future consideration of a national superannuation scheme would not interfere with the entitlements of people who were participating in existing private or public schemes. That is from Mr Dawkins. What is Mr Dawkins's credibility like? I think Mr Tuckey really explained in the other place what Mr Dawkins's credibility is like . What is Senator Grimes's credibility like? He says that he was misquoted in the Financial Review. Senator Grimes —I didn't say that at all. Senator WALTERS —He said that he did not say what the Financial Review quoted him as saying. Senator Grimes —I didn't. Read it again. Senator WALTERS —I will read it again, with pleasure. I will read it from the dock. The article headed, 'No rise in super tax-PM' states: The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has confirmed that there will be no increase in the tax rate for lump superannuation payments. There had been considerable speculation that the Government intended to increase the rate after deciding to restrict the level of superannuation payouts for federal politicians. A speech by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to the National Economic Summit in which he referred to the tax advantage enjoyed by superannuation only seemed to fuel speculation. Senator Grimes has since said that his comments were misinterpreted. Mr Hawke said on Friday that comments he had made some weeks ago about the review of existing expenditure and taxation had been given a currency they did not deserve. He said there was 'no basis' for the speculation that the Government intended to raise the 5 per cent tax on lump payments. Mr Hawke privately told members of the ACTU last week that the Government would not move against the tax. That article was written by Andrew McCathie of the Australian Financial Review. Senator Grimes —Table it. Senator WALTERS —I will have great pleasure, Mr Acting Deputy President, in tabling that information, as Senator Grimes has asked me to do. I seek leave to table the document. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Let us go on to yet another broken promise about which Senator Grimes is concerned-the promise to establish an office of aged care. As I have said, it is all rhetoric. Has Senator Grimes established an office of aged care? I have heard him promise it many times. Obviously he has not given any explanation as to why he has not done so. During many committee hearings we have talked about the proposed office of aged care. The pensioners have looked forward to its establishment. But nothing but a tremendous silence has come from the Minister in this regard. There is not a great deal more that I need to say. The Minister is obviously very sensitive about the fact that he has been caught promising things that have not come about and things that were not going to happen but that happened a short time later. It behoves him to get up at the completion of the debate on this motion moved by Senator Messner and explain the actions not only of himself but also of the Government that he represents in this place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.46) —The Senate is debating a motion which states: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for its failure to address the needs of the aged and notes that the Government- (a) has failed to establish an Office of Aged Care as promised during the 1983 election; (b) has failed to raise pensions to 25 per cent as promised during the 1983 election; (c) has consistently attacked the income security of the aged through a means test of the over-70's pension, an assets test on all pensioners, and the introduction of a savage new tax on lump sum superannuation. That motion is factual in all that it states. It is simply a matter of fact. All the facts contained in the motion are as stated. Senator Grimes —That is your definition of facts, is it, Senator? That is typical of your record in this place. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I invite the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to interject at any time. I find his interjections to be valuable because we will now test whether these are facts or not. Has the Government failed to establish an office of aged care as promised? The answer is yes. That is a fact and not the kind of spurious fact put forward by Senator Grimes who, of course, was rolled in his own Cabinet. Senator Grimes came into this Senate and promised the pensioners- Senator Grimes —Wind him up. Bore it up, John. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —He has asked for this and now he gets it. Senator Grimes came into the Senate repeatedly in recent months and promised pensioners that they would get more in their pensions than merely an adjustment for Medicare, that there would be more in real terms and that in fact there would be a real movement to satisfy the promise to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Either he was telling a falsity then or he was rolled in his Cabinet because it did not happen. Nobody has been a greater loser in Cabinet than Senator Grimes other than, of course, his close colleague the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who is rolled every day. Let us come to the facts because I have been challenged as to what they are. Senator Grimes —Come on; wind it up. Wind it up. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will wind it up and Hansard and the public will know that what I am saying are the facts and that what the Minister is trying to deflect and distort now is just one of his usual tricks. He will not divert us. The fact is that no office of aged care was established. Is it a fact that the Government has failed to raise pensions to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings? Of course it is a fact that it has not done so. Is it a fact that the Government has consistently attacked the income security of the aged through the imposition of a means test on the pension for those over 70 years of age? Is it a fact that it imposed such a means test? The fact is that it did. Is it a fact that the Government applied an assets test to the assets of all pensioners? Is it a fact that it introduced a savage new tax on lump sum superannuation payments? The people of Australia should note that the Minister, having challenged me, is not only silent but also has left the chamber. There is no Minister in the chamber; the chamber is without a Minister at all. Senator Walters —He can't take it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —He cannot take it. Indeed there is one lonely Australian Labor Party senator to support the Government. Of course what I have said are the facts. Senator Grimes —Why don't you tell the truth? Tell the truth just once in your life. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I will tell the truth step by step. Let me say this, Mr Acting Deputy President-- Senator Grimes —You couldn't lie straight in bed. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I hope that Hansard is reporting all of these interjections. Senator Grimes —You are a disgrace as a knight of the realm. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Because I want to make it perfectly clear that this Minister, like the Attorney-General, has no factual answer. It is only dirty abuse; the abuse of the gutter. Let the Minister take it. This is a Minister who is supposed to be solicitous for the aged, the retired and the pensioners, but what is he doing here tonight? When he is on the defensive his larrikin streak shows, but it will not deflect what I am saying at all. Senator Grimes —I am not solicitous to you. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister invites me to tell the truth. I will tell the truth. Let me say this. Senator Grimes —I will speak after you and I will tell the truth. You wave that little shaking finger and flaunt your knighthood round the place. You are a disgrace to your profession. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I invite the Acting Deputy President to listen to what is being said. If this is the conduct of a Minister of the Crown, let the Labor Party wear it. I have been invited to tell the truth. I ask the Senate, I ask the Minister: Is it the truth that the Labor Party promised the people that it would not alter the means test on the pension? Senator Grimes —No. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Oh, it is not the truth? Senator Grimes —No. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Has no promise been made that the Government would maintain the pension for people over 70? Senator Grimes —No. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Was there no promise? Senator Grimes —No. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Minister should keep talking. Was no promise at all made that the Government would not tax lump sum superannuation payments? Senator Grimes —No. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Was no promise made that the Government would increase the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Senator Grimes —Yes, but within three years. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —But this is the term of the Government. This is the second Budget of the Government. Senator Grimes —Oh no. You are distorting, aren't you? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, if it is the decision of this chamber that the Minister shall act like a larrikin all the time, let it be a reflection on the Labor Party. Senator Grimes —I will let you go. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What rot! What a generous concession! Let us take it step by step. Mr Acting Deputy President, the public of Australia will know the defensive arguments of this Government on this whole matter. It will know of the abusive and larrikin behaviour of this Minister who can never direct his arguments to the facts relating to his portfolio. He makes insinuations and engages in personal character abuse and assassination. He will be at it again tonight. I have challenged him in the past to stand up and be counted, to come outside this Parliament and say these things, but he deflated like a balloon. He has not got the guts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! Senator Sir John Carrick should withdraw that comment; it is unparliamentary language. Senator Grimes —I am not asking for a withdrawal. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is too much interjection. I ask Senator Sir John Carrick to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask you to confirm that I have addressed the whole of my remarks through the Chair. If there are to be any kinds of restraints I suggest that they be where the mote is in the eye. Mr Acting Deputy President, only in deference to you do I withdraw because I do not believe that under the Standing Orders what I have said is unparliamentary. I want to say this to you: Government members are allowed to be abusive all the time and if that is the standard for them, my goodness I am speaking with the tongues of angels. Senator Grimes —Mr Acting Deputy President, with due respect I raise a point of order. I make it perfectly clear that first of all I did not ask the honourable senator to withdraw. Secondly, I point out that Senator Sir John Carrick has said to you, as the person in the chair, that Government members are allowed to interject and be abusive without any penalty being imposed on them. I think that that is a reflection on the Chair. It is typical of what the honourable senator did day in and day out when he was Leader of the Government in the Senate. I just point out that it is a reflection on the Chair and I am not sure that even a knight of the realm should be allowed to behave like that in this place. Senator Messner —I have watched this matter develop and Senator Sir John Carrick , in all his graciousness, has, at your request, withdrawn the words. It does not matter what the Minister has to say about the matter; Senator Sir John Carrick has done the right thing in deference to the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I do not take what has been said as a reflection on the Chair at all. There have been many interjections and the heat is starting to rise. I ask Senator Sir John Carrick to continue his remarks. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I will continue to address my remarks to you. I expect that the Minister, in a responsible way, will address himself to the facts. The facts of the motion that is before us are irrefutable. The fact is that the Government made a whole series of promises to the people. The Government led the people to believe that they could vote for it in March 1983 and, if it were elected to office, there would be no change in the non-means test on pensions. For the Minister to say tonight that no such promise was made is to deny the facts of history. Indeed for him to say that no promises were made that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation payments is to deny what has been said in the media. The situation simply is that the Government has attacked the taxpayers. Over the past year it has taken $22 a week from them and given them back a miserly $7 a week, and on top of that it has imposed new indexed taxes so they will not even get the $7. It has forced them into higher tax scales so rather than receive a tax cut they will pay more taxes. If that is tough on taxpayers how much tougher is it on the aged, the indigent, the pensioners and retired people? These people were led to believe that they would get a real increase in their purchasing power. I draw attention to the fact that the Minister has again left the chamber while this debate is proceeding. For a long while people were led to believe that what they got would be an increase. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition was able to show to the people of Australia that the device used of reducing the consumer price index by 2.6 per cent because of Medicare was a fiddle. I hope that everybody understands that. What happened was simple. In the past people paid their hospital insurance out of their pockets in a form of indirect taxation or charge and that factor was taken into account in the cost of living. Now people pay their health insurance through direct taxation and by an accident of history the consumer price index does not take direct taxes into account; it takes indirect taxes into account. Medicare costs the taxpayer more. The CPI has been forced down by arithmetic and not by a drop in prices. There has been no drop in prices. There has been only an alteration in the arithmetic. This means that the $2.50 that single pensioners are to be given will almost totally be taken up by the increase in the consumer price index. Had there been no alteration they would have got the extra amount anyhow. They are getting a handful of cents, 35c or something of that order, a week. But they are not getting even that, of course, because indirect taxes are indexed. Without any further Budgets the prices of the little pleasures of the people, the little simple things such as petrol for their cars, tobacco and liquor, are indexed and are going up all the time. Before they get the 35c it is taken from them. In fact, pensioners will get less in the coming months than they had before. In other words, the real value of the pension will be downgraded. That is the situation of the pensioner. The retired person is in a much greater dilemma. It is important to remember that the Minister for Social Security is on record as saying with regard to assets tests No. 1 or No. 2 that less than 400,000 people would be affected-I hope he admits that that is a factual representation of what he said-as though that did not matter. That is 400,000 people out of two million-a major percentage of two million. That is what he was setting out to do. Had the Senate not acted, had the Opposition in the Senate not been vigorous in drawing attention to all these matters and had a Senate committee not been set up this assets test would have gone on, because the Prime Minister said: 'We will stop this assets test and put it aside. We have made a mistake in judgment and it has to be altered'. Now, of course, we have an assets test that looks more benign. But the only reasons the assets tests were put forward were to stop double dipping and to save money for other purposes. As I remember, the Government had in mind to save between $200m and $300m a year. Let nobody be fooled by the fact that this Budget has a negative gain because of all the inspectors who are to be employed to intrude into and search homes. Let nobody be fooled by that. No government puts in place an assets test and employs 1,500 additional people unless in the end it wants to save hundreds of millions of dollars and unless in the end it is attacking the target of 400,000 people, as it set out to do. Here we have a real raid. It will not happen before the next election, but just as the promises given prior to the last election were confronted by a punitive mini -Budget afterwards, so in the months ahead, should the Government unfortunately win the next election, there will again be a real raid upon the pensioners. Those aged over 70 had planned their lives on the basis that there would be no means test. Their way of life and that of their family were adjusted because of that. They were led to believe by the Hawke Labor Party and by the present Minister that there would be no attack on that. No sooner was this Government in power than in a mini-Budget it raided about 50,000 people in their seventies who had their pensions altered, taken away or denied them-a broken promise again. Of courses, the Government then looked at superannuation. Over the last 30 years superannuation had been encouraged by successive Liberal governments. The aim was to encourage voluntary providence by giving people tax incentives. We said to the people: 'We want you at the time of retirement to have savings that you can deploy according to your own wishes-to pay off the mortgage on your house, if you want to; to set yourself up in a small business, if you want to; to help your kids, if you want to; or to leave to your family in your will, if you want to'. All those things were regarded by the Australian people as having virtue. No mention was made that this would be touched. A little more than 1.5 million people-maybe as many as 1.8 million-are involved in superannuation. They are not all airline pilots. No, they are people such as ironworkers, waterside workers and shop assistants, and one million of them are forced to take lump sum payments because of the nature of their schemes. The whole of their lives are organised and geared to their having full use of that sum on retirement. It is of no use saying that there has been no retrospectivity. Of course there has been, because the schemes were designed from the start to give people the total sum at the end of the journey. Now the tax is to start and people will not get the total sum. In any case, a very ugly thing has happened. The Government has said that it wants to persuade-let me say 'coerce'-people into purchasing annuities. What do we do when we purchase an annuity? We surrender our capital to get income; we surrender our right to invest capital, to be the small investors that Australians ought to be; and we surrender forever capital we might have willed to our families. So there is an attack on the estates of people. Now the government has put forward a pay-as-you-die scheme, an extraordinary scheme whereby it will say to people: 'If your property test puts you outside the limit at the moment we will lend you the pension and you owe us'. Senator Walters —With interest. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —With interest compounding. It says: 'We want to erode your estate in that regard just as we do when you purchase an annuity'. What an ugly concept this is. Of course, the Government cannot stop there, as I have said repeatedly in the Senate. If it is pursuing people's capital and the income they get from the disposal of capital, it then has to turn to people who get capital at or about retiring age from other sources-from all sorts of fixed trusts, from buying and selling properties-to build up an asset for themselves. How can the Government say: 'We will attack a person's superannuation only at the point of collection but we will not attack people who are doing the same thing in different ways'? Quite clearly, therefore, a capital gains tax structure must be coming in. Otherwise the answer is that the Government is attacking one group and not another. What can be more ugly than that? Everything that has been said in the debate on this motion is perfectly correct . There has been a wicked erosion of the standards of those who are retired. People who are retired or approaching retirement have been put into a state of anxiety because they cannot be sure while a Labor government is in power that the plan today will be the plan tomorrow. How can they know that where the Government stops before the next election will be where it will start after the election, should it win? Quite clearly they now know that they can never plan for security in retirement. They can never plan on their homes being inviolate. If they are pensioners they can never be sure that there will not be a knock at the door, endless forms to be filled in or a demand to search and evaluate their property. What we are doing, therefore, is having a race of inquisitors, a race of inspectors. It is no good governments denying that they will do this. A simple bit of arithmetic is necessary. On the Government's own say-so, I think some 1,500 people are to be employed to supervise this new assets test. Why would one employ an extra 1,500 people unless one were aiming to lower the pensions of tens and hundreds of thousands of people? It would be an exercise in nonsense. The very magnitude of the task force that the Government is setting up and the way in which it will evaluate the assets of an individual mean that the Government has to have a huge inquisitive inspectorate. Can there be anything more ugly than the threatening of the aged, putting insecurity into them by stating that what they have might be looked at tomorrow and what they have stated might be wrong? After all, the Government does not mind Mick Young making wrong statements. That is all right if they are made in good faith. But it does want to pursue the aged and the retired. This notice of motion confirms that there has been no establishment of an office of aged care. The Government has failed to raise pensions to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. It is of no use the Government saying to us: ' But we have not run for three years'. That was a decision of this Government. This Government has made the decision that it will not run for three years. Every Australian will ask: 'Why is it not? What does it have up its sleeve for tomorrow?' After all, we now know that the Government does have things up its sleeve. Why is it not going to run for three years? After all, no one has given us more lectures on parliament running a full term than the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party and Mr Hawke made a pledge that they would run for a full term. If Mr Hawke can break that promise for his own self-interest how many more promises will this Government break on this and other things? Senator Boswell —They can't break any more; they have broken the lot. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —They have broken the lot. It is no good saying: 'We have not really caught up 25 per cent but we would have if we had stayed in office for another year'. That was a decision that the Minister for Social Security and the Government made. That is a decision that they have to stand with. Indeed the Government has not gone a bone fide distance in this regard in any case. The Medicare fiddle means that it has made no progress at all. The Medicare fiddle, taken with the raid on indexed taxes, that is, excise charges and charges on people's beer, cigarettes and petrol, means that these people will have less real purchasing power than they did after the last Budget because , of course, the indexing runs on. Senator Walters —They are not counted. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —They are counted but they are counted ahead in the end . Demonstrably, because of the higher charges, there has been no increase at all in pensions. Along with that there is a clear understanding that the Minister is after 400,000 people. To be honest, he said that something fewer than 400,000 people's pensions would be affected; let us be puritanical in this. I believe that the Government was talking of a $200m or $300m saving in this situation. That is what is in store after this election. That is what is in store on all these matters. The simple fact is that the Government is running scared. The Government is running 18 months before it should because it knows that its chickens will come home to roost next year. It knows that it will be found out on taxes and pensions. It knows that its tax cut is the greatest sham and swindle that there is. How can one take $22 a week out of people's pockets and pretend that one is doing something for them when one gives barely $7 back and one then puts extra taxes on wine and other things and introduces indexation? The taxation cuts are a fraud and demonstrably so. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(9.15) —The Senate is debating a motion by Senator Messner which condemns the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government for its failure to address the needs of the aged. There have been several excellent speeches this evening. I shall speak but briefly and confine myself to one aspect of the motion, not because I do not agree with the other parts, but because I do not wish at this stage to reiterate arguments that have been put so cogently by Senator Messner, Senator Walters and Senator Sir John Carrick. A few minutes ago Senator Carrick referred to the ugliness of the policies that have been followed by this Government, particularly in relation to pensions. The measures of this Government, particularly in relation to the assets test, are the most disgraceful attack on the aged people of this country that I have ever known. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, puts out soothing Press releases which unfortunately newspaper editors are all too willing to gobble up and reprint without looking at them critically. The Minister writes letters to the editors of newspapers and criticisms appear either in the 'letters to the editor' parts or in reporting in other parts of the newspapers. He writes these soothing letters, soothing on the one hand and abusive on the other. He talks about pensioners who are receiving money to which they are not entitled. According to the Minister we cannot afford these people who are taking money out of the public purse when they do not need it. Then, on the other hand he says: ' Ah, but it will affect very few. So stop worrying, all you aged pensioners. There are only a few whose pensions will be affected'. It may well be that there are only a few whose pensions will be affected but the measures of this Government affect every pensioner. It may or may not affect their pensions but it affects every pensioner. I wonder how many frail aged the Minister has had contact with lately? I wonder how many of the elderly, the really dependent who are non compos mentis and who need support and care, the Minister has been soothing? I am sure he is very soothing in his manner. He has a good doctor's manner. he has an excellent doctor's manner but he must have faced those people, worrying. It has been my experience that many of the aged in our community have been made to feel little better than parasites. They have been isolated by a very carefully constructed argument. The first line of argument is: There are too many of them, there will be more, they will cost us more, they will bankrupt this country and we cannot afford the old people in this community. The other line of argument is: Those people do not need it anyway and they are taking things they are not entitled to . The Government says: 'We will just locate those people and we will fix them up '. The aged in this community have been isolated by the Government in this debate and by the unthinking reiteration of the Government's arguments by people who have not looked past the surface. The allegations are false, and this much I will repeat. I will repeat it because the Government knows that the claim, 'We cannot afford the aged in the future' to be false. This is the advice it is given over and again from its departments and this is contained in its reports on the subject. The Government has had the evidence put in front of it. I am sure that the Minister knows by heart the tables that I have yet to read. Between 1974 and 1982 the increase of aged pensioners, compared with the total increase of the welfare budget, has been 28.6 per cent. We have been told many times about the burgeoning welfare Budget. We have been told in debates that the suggestion is that this will become a Budget that we cannot afford and one area where we can properly prune it is in the area of the aged. Yet the figures show that the aged pensioners are not the ones who are inflating the welfare Budget. Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, has, of all the comparable countries, one of the lowest proportions of aged in the community. The impression we are given is that this wealthy country will not be able to afford the increase. Yet many countries have a much higher proportion of their population in an older age group. Senator Grimes —This is a good speech. I agree with it. Senator MARTIN —I am sure that the Minister agrees with many of the points that have been put to him, including the information given to him by his own Department. I am sure that what his Government determines, he is to say publicly that there is a different situation. Our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who likes to look as though he is tackling difficult subjects referred the matter of an assets test off to a task force for report. The task force reported that this argument that has appeared over the Minister's name time and time again, namely, the burden of the increasing proportion of our population-- Senator Grimes —No, no, no. Senator MARTIN —Yes. This report, based at least partly on the Minister's own Department's information, points out the falsity of this argument. Senator Grimes —I agree with you. Senator MARTIN —The Minister agrees. I am sorry, I have not seen a single letter to the editor of a newpaper from the Minister disagreeing with an editorial that has run this line and yet I have seen inference after inference from the Minister that this country cannot afford the increasing proportion of our aged population. I will quote from the Gruen report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test. The report pointed out that the increase in the rate of the aged section of the community is increasing ahead of the total population growth rate by 0.71 per cent per annum. It states: . . . a 0.71 per cent relative increase per annum is not particularly alarming and, supposing that long term productivity growth rates average at least 1 per cent per annum, sustainable with an unchanged tax burden . . . That is a very modest and moderate assessment. Long term productivity growth rates average one per cent per annum, sustainable at the present tax rate. A government report is quoted in the Gruen report which found that while the age proportion of the population will increase, this will be offset in expenditure terms by a reduction in the proportion of youth. So the expected cumulative increase in expenditure will be only 0.24 per cent per year. Senator Grimes —That is right, no problems. Senator MARTIN —The Minister nods wisely and speaks soothingly to me as I am sure he is speaking soothingly to the aged. I have yet to see a letter to the editor from this Minister for Social Security referring to the decrease in the percentage of our population which will be in the youth group. The aged are a proportionately expensive group in terms of facilities and support, relatively expensive, but so are the young very demanding on the public purse. That offset has not been mentioned in a single letter to the editor, in a single release from the Minister to editors of newspapers pointing out what all the factors are . Finally, the report notes that those in the work force now are very much more likely to be able to better provide for themselves and their retirement in the future. So those unfortunate enough to be aged under this Hawke Government are the ones who have to pay for this Government's propaganda. The Minister nods wisely when I say that he keeps on saying that it will affect fewer pensioners. My goodness me, how many people, including a lot of pensioners, have swallowed that one? It affects every aged pensioner. It may not affect their pension, but it affects all aged pensioners because it hangs over their heads and there is information that is required from all. Something that I find particularly curious about this assets test-maybe the Minister one day will fully let us in on what information this particular part of the decision was based on-is the $10,000 house contents valuation. When one thinks about it, $10,000 is a very modest sum of money indeed. For most people it will include all their personal effects. House contents insurance commonly does, unless people choose to have separate personal effects insurance. For most people all personal effects come into their house contents policy, that includes their clothes, whatever silverware they have, crockery, cutlery, jewellery, plus their furnishings. The Minister nods his head. I am correct. Indeed I am. I have read that information from the Minister's own sources. I wonder what this Government thinks $10,000 buys these days in those terms and what it represents? Senator Grimes —It is not the replacement value. It is the actual value. If it is the replacement value it would be a dreadful sum. Senator MARTIN —I will just cut the Minister a little short. I have the contents of my home insured. I know the conditions of insurance policies. It is actual value. So that is a very great consolation unless of course one chooses to insure for replacement value, which one can do. Senator Grimes —Of course you should. Senator MARTIN —Yes, one can. If the actual value is $10,000, replacement value will be much higher. Pensioners-let us say a pensioner living in an average, modest weatherboard home in Queensland which is a higher fire risk-will have to decide how they will insure their personal effects and contents or whether they are going to insure them because the Government will assume that the value of the contents is $10,000 unless the pensioner nominates a higher or lower figure. If it happens that the pensioner has insured for replacement value and it is likely to be much higher than $10,000, the pensioner is faced with a very real problem. Senator Grimes —Insurance has nothing to do with it. Senator MARTIN —The Minister says insurance has nothing to do with it. Yet if it is investigated, how will it be assessed? I will give a common example to the Minister because he is apparently terribly badly informed on this matter. It is quite common for elderly women to own more than one diamond ring, rings that have belonged to their mothers, maybe their grandmothers. They are family items. These people are not wealthy. The rings have been given to them by previous generations such as aunts and probably even by their own husbands. If rings are covered in a contents policy as personal effects, as they commonly are, they are going to have a problem. In any event, all persioners have to make an assessment of the value of the contents of their home and have to make a statement. Some will be affected as a result of the assessment. Senator Grimes —No. Senator MARTIN —It is true. They can choose whether or not to make a statement. If they do not they are allowing the Government to assume that the value is no more than $10,000. They can make a statement that the value is less than $10,000 ; they must make a statement if it is more. The other problem is the gift tax. Why is it that the aged pensioners of this country are the only people in the country subject to a gift tax? That is a matter that the Minister has not sought to elucidate in any of his letters to the editors of newspapers; not at all. There is no soothing elucidation that he could give. I move to the next part of the motion. As I said at the beginning of my remarks , this Government has embarked on a disgraceful attack on the aged. But it has done more than that; it has moved very effectively to affect how people plan for their old age. Senator Sir John Carrick said quite a bit on this matter and I will refer to it just briefly. The new provision for the lump sum tax on superannuation, particularly when taken in conjunction with the Government's means test on the over-70 pension and means and assets test on all pensioners has provided a substantial disincentive to the future aged-particularly people now in their 50s. A number of people in that age group have discussed this with me in recent months and have said: 'I am not going to save for when I retire; I will spend; I will have the overseas holiday; I will enjoy myself because if I put even a modest amount aside the Government will be reaching for it'. There is nothing more profound that any government can do to a society than the measures it takes in relation to its aged. The way a society treats its aged is a profound measure of the health of that society. The measures that this Government has taken in relation to the pension and superannuation together affect not just the retired, not just the about to retire, but every income earning person in this country. Whatever our expectations are when we are no longer earning or expect no longer to earn an income will be very much moulded by this sort of measure. Young people planning for the day when they will no longer be income earners, making decisions about investment, home purchase, property and all of those things about which we all make decisions right through our earning lives, are being influenced today in their decisions on those matters by these measures of the Government. There is nothing more profound a government can do. Those two measures together are a profound revelation in relation to a Labor government. There has been a distinct loss of incentive to save and to put that extra bit aside, a distinct lack of incentive to save to the maximum, to make the maximum possible provision for old age, and a distinct lack of incentive for those who are about to retire to make critical decisions for the next few years not knowing what will come next from this Government. I wish to have one final word. The Minister has nodded his head wisely, muttered sometimes audibly across the table and shaken his head wisely on a few occasions. The saddest people I have met in the last few weeks are certain people in nursing homes who expect to leave or desire to leave. I think of one woman in particular who had had a very severe stroke and had been admitted to a nursing home. She was not old. She, I would think, probably in her late 60s-a lady of great vigour of mind and determination. Despite the severity of a stoke which occurred about 12 months ago, she was determined to return to her home. She was adamant that she would not stay in nursing home care, and she had made far greater progress than might have been expected some months ago. I conclude that all being well, the progress she was making will take her home. She may be better off in a nursing home but she will go home if she can possibly look after herself. In the meantime, she has a home that is not occupied and there is a two -year limit on how long a person can have a home and not live in it under this assets test. In about six months time she will probably still be in the nursing home and facing a pretty cruel choice. She knows that now. The Minister makes no soothing noises for a change. Senator Grimes —I will answer that one. Senator MARTIN —I know the Minister will answer me but he has yet to say anything in this place or via letters to the editors or via his Press releases which will convince the aged or soothe them. They know their vulnerability and they know they have been treated in a way in which they had been told they would not be treated by a Labor government. Senator Sir John Carrick, as I said at the beginning of my speech, used the word 'ugly'. It is ugly, and it is sad and tragic. The Government, I am sure, in looking at its numbers has decided it is safe. The Government in the case of its education decision decided that that was not safe. The churches were mounting too good a campaign against that particular government policy and influencing too many people. But the Minister says that not many people will be affected by this assets test. Everybody in this country who has any wit is affected by this assets test. People are affected in the first place if they happen to be on an age pension. They will be very aware of it if a member of their family happens to be elderly and dependent on a pension. If they are thinking at all, as most would be, they will realise that one day the way in which they acquiesce in how this Government treats the aged in these measures will determine the way in which they will be treated. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.38) —My time for reply is limited but I certainly wish to reply to the motion which has been moved by Senator Messner. I think it is about the third time that he has moved a motion of this type and I think it is the third time, or certainly the second time, in a debate of this type that we have heard Senator Messner, Senator Walters and Senator Sir John Carrick speak. I must say that it was refreshing tonight to find Senator Martin added to that list. I particularly commend to members of the Opposition, particularly Senator Walters, that they read at least the first 10 or 15 minutes of Senator Martin's remarks. Then, perhaps, they will not go along with the sorts of editorials we have seen in the past in newspapers such as the Australian and others talking about the problems of this country in social security and in particular the problems of retirement. Senator Martin largely confined her remarks towards the end of her speech to the assets test and its application. Because my time is limited I implore her before we debate that legislation in this place to actually read the legislation and see what it is all about. Then, I believe, she will not make the sorts of remarks she made tonight about the $10,000 value on personal possessions in the home and in particular she will not repeat her statement that every pensioner in this country will have to assess those personal possessions and inform the Government about them. That is not so. Senator Martin —That is not all that I said. Senator GRIMES —That is what the honourable senator said. That is not true, and I urge the honourable senator to look at what was said. Senator Martin then made remarks about concern for the elderly, for those who have retired and especially for the frail aged. I can add only that I also-the honourable senator may be surprised to hear this-have considerable concern for the frail aged in the community. Before I became a senator, I spent a fair bit of time looking after the frail aged in the community. I know the sort of problems that face them. I shall be willing to debate that matter, particularly in the debate on the assets test which will soon come up. At least Senator Martin's speech had the ring of sincerity and at least she quoted the documents that she had read. I wish that she had read the legislation and the explanatory notes, but that will happen in the near future. I have very little to say about Senator Sir John Carrick's speech, but I have three basic points. I shall state the first one briefly. It always amuses me when Senator Sir John Carrick gets upset about a bit of repartee or even abuse across the chamber. I sat in Opposition when Senator Sir John Carrick was Leader of the Government in the Senate and heard the vitriol and abuse. Every Question Time I heard the sort of nonsense that came from the honourable senator. Now, when he gets a bit back, he does not like it. He says that his honour is impugned and goes on with all the nonsense such as that we have heard tonight. I just put that aside. Senator Sir John Carrick talked tonight about the Government setting up a social security inspectorate that will go into everyone's home. He said that 1, 500 people will go into people's homes to inspect them. Just for accuracy, I point out that it takes 1,100 people not 1,500 to establish an assets test. I accept that point. After the first year of operation, it takes 300 people to keep the assets test going. They will not be going into people's homes unless they are asked to do so to help people. Any suggestion otherwise is a lie; but that is what we expect from Senator Sir John Carrick in view of his speeches in this place on Rundle shares, et cetera. Senator Sir John Carrick —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is a complete breach of Standing Orders for the honourable senator to say that it is a lie and that that is what he expects from me and to impute to me motives on Rundle shares. The fact is that during the time that Senator Grimes was in Opposition he sat on this side of the chamber and hurled personal abuse at me, not at the issues of government. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —Order! Senator Sir John Carrick is starting to debate the point of order. I ask Senator Grimes to withdraw what was said. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. Senator Sir John Carrick said that 1,500 people would inspect homes. He said that an inspectorate would be employed by the Department of Social Security and would go into people's homes. That is not true . Senator Sir John Carrick knows that that is not true, and his statement was a product of his fevered imagination-I think that term is within parliamentary language. I shall leave the issue at that point. The important point is that Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Walters and Senator Messner spoke in the debate. All they did was nark and nitpick. We heard no positive statements, except one from Senator Messner, to which I shall come in a moment. One point made by Senator Sir John Carrick was very important. He said that previous Australian Governments had encouraged superannuation, and indeed they have done so. He said that they had given people tax incentives and that there had been special tax treatment on lump sums. I must point out that Australia is unique in the world in that regard. During the past 30 or 40 years, successive governments of both political persuasions, but largely conservative, took those measures to encourage people to be self-reliant. If Senator Sir John Carrick reads the debates and the arguments by people who preceded him in this place and even honourable senators who were in this place with him, he will find that there was one other compelling argument, which he did not mention tonight. That argument was that if we encourage people to go into superannuation schemes and encourage them to prepare for retirement, they will end up able to provide an income for themselves on retirement and would, therefore, ease the burden on the social security system. As pointed out by the report of the Taxation Review Committee, chaired by Mr Justice Asprey, and the report of the National Superannuation Committee of inquiry, chaired by Mr Hancock, what is wrong with our system is that people have been able to take tax incentives and obtain preferential treatment for lump sums on retirement and still draw fully on the social security system. They are able to obtain full pensions and full fringe benefits, whereas their brothers and sisters, who had weekly superannuation payments or small weekly incomes-not lump sums-lost part of their earnings and frequently their fringe benefits because of the income test. That inequity has been pointed out over and over again by people who have looked at the superannuation system in this country. Obviously, that inequity does not worry any Opposition senator, because four Opposition senators have spoken tonight and none has mentioned that aspect. Over the years, the aim of the superannuation scheme was to enable people to prepare for retirement and provide themselves with a retirement income. In exchange for considerable tax concessions, they would not have to draw on the social security system. That result has not occurred and, therefore, something must be done about the problem. Of course we can cope with our aging population. Australia is one of the lowest taxed countries in the world. We have one of the lowest social security bills in the world, and our population is not aging at the rate it is in European countries. If we are to provide an adequate level of income to people who are aging, those who are becoming invalids and those who may not be able to obtain employment, particularly those who have no other support, and if we are to raise the base rate of support, we shall have to change the system. Senator Messner —How are you going to do it with your assets test? Senator GRIMES —I shall talk about how I think we shall do that. The honourable senator did not mention how he would do it, except in one regard. I shall come to the point. Senator Messner made one positive statement. He said that the Opposition would provide an adequate level of income to those people by giving tax incentives and removing impediments in the social security system to encourage people to care for themselves. That is what we have been doing in this country for 35 to 40 years. What have we got out of it? Forty per cent of the population have access to personal superannuation schemes. There is the inequity of people who are able to take large sums and have a great advantage over their brothers and sisters on weekly payments. Those who take large sums have a considerable advantage over their brothers and sisters who have nothing and must rely on the base rate pension. We have a social security system that provides inadequate support, according to anybody's calculation, for the other disadvantaged people in the community-the single parents, widows with children and the unemployed, especially those with children. There are people in the community who are in great need of better support. In comparable countries, those people obtain that better support. Let me give one example of the sort of direction in which we in this country have gone and where successive governments, having realised that they have gone in the wrong direction, have turned back. As soon as Senator Walters and company get into opposition they forget this. When I first became a member of this Parliament, both major parties, both sides of the Parliament, had it as a policy that they would abolish the means test. In 1975 in this Parliament I remember Senator Chaney, for one, and myself on the other side, questioned both of our parties' policies. We said that we did not believe it was right; we did not believe it was fair. We knew what happened in other countries that had a means- test-free pension. We knew that the pension was inadequate. We knew that it was inadequate support for poor people and for people who had nothing with which to supplement it. We knew of the situation in England, for instance, where there are supplementary pensions on top of the pension which are viciously means tested. The previous Government recognised that and stopped the means-test-free pension for people over the age of 70. It froze it at a base level and put a means test on increases. There was the usual kerfuffle in this place. But it was nothing like the present kerfuffle. Senator Walters got up a meeting with me in Hobart and justified this by saying: 'There are people over 70 who are getting the pension they cannot afford'. When we extend this and put a more generous means test on the over 70s but recognise the fact that we cannot go on with that situation, we have Senator Walters berating us and saying: 'What a terrible thing to do'. Senator Walters —No, I was correcting you. You stopped it, Whitlam stopped it; we froze it. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters says 'what a terrible thing to do'-to go in the same direction as the previous Government was going. So we have in this country a recognition that we have to change direction, and that we have to change direction in the future. There is a necessity for us all to think about where we are going, what we are doing and in what direction we are going. That is what this Government is trying to do. We recognised that we could not proceed, for instance, down the road to a universal superannuation scheme, a contributory pension scheme. We agreed with Asprey, with Hancock and with the Campbell inquiry when they said that we cannot persist with a situation whereby people who can take a lump sum remain in this privileged situation as regards tax deductions for their superannuation and as regards taxation of their lump sum; we cannot proceed down that track and afford to introduce an adequate universal superannuation scheme. Senator Walters —Why don't you make it your election commitment instead of telling an untruth about it? Senator GRIMES —We cannot do that; we cannot proceed down that track. Senator Walters —Why won't you answer that question? Senator GRIMES —I think that all sensible people-unlike Senator Walters- recognise that that is the case. From the very day in 1976 when the assets element of the income test was removed, largely to deal with farmers but also apparently to deal with what were seen to be administrative difficulties in this country, anyone who reads the Australian Financial Review, the National Times, the Pensioner Weekly, the Australian Pensioner or anything else, found advertisement after advertisement after advertisement-including one in one of the Sunday papers; I cannot remember which one-saying: 'You can be a millionaire and you can still get the full pension and full fringe benefits'. It opened up a whole new industry, a whole new field, through which people could manipulate the system, avoid the income test, and still get the full pension and full fringe benefits. If we do not head down the track of stopping that, the bill in the future will be considerable-not because our population is aging at an impossible rate but because that sort of avoidance is at an impossible rate. Senator Walters — Do you think you have stopped it? Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters says: 'Do you think you can stop it?' The difference between Senator Walters and me is that I believe that it should be stopped. I do not intend to stand up here and be the defender of privilege of the type that Senator Walters is. I shall not do that. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. If Senator Grimes is going to pick up an interjection incorrectly, that is an abuse of this Parliament. He must pick up the interjection correctly. What I said was: 'Do you think you have stopped it?'-not 'Do you think you can stop it?'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Townley) —I am sorry, Senator Walters, but there is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —I point out to Senator Walters that we have not even passed the assets test legislation; but the fact that it will pass has made people think, including perhaps even some of the entrepreneurs, about where they might go with these schemes in the future. Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for general business has expired. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable senators, I table the government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and related matters. I seek leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to make a short statement in connection with the guidelines, to have the guidelines incorporated in Hansard, and to move that the Senate take note of the guidelines. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —The Government's guidelines respond to a recommendation by the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration that conventions relating to appearances of officials be set down in a consolidated form for the guidance of officials. The previous Government informed Parliament of its own proposed guidelines on 28 September 1978, and undertook to review them in the light of experience. The Government's guidelines take into account that experience and the helpful comments made by parliamentary officers and others. As well they are guided by the principles of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 as further elaborated by this Government's legislation and draw on relevant recommendations in the exposure draft of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. The guidelines are grounded in the principle that it must be for Ministers to advocate or defend policy, but recognise the rights and duties of officials as citizens and the importance of informed public debate. The Public Service Board' s guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants relating to public comment have been revised commensurately and will be issued shortly. While the Government's guidelines are primarily for officials, they will nevertheless be of considerable interest to honourable senators. The guidelines read as follows- GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR OFFICIAL WITNESSES BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES AND RELATED MATTERS Contents Paragraphs Introduction 1-2 A. Parliamentary Committees 3-14 Preliminaries to an inquiry 5-7 Preparation of written material 8-15 Conduct during hearings 16-21 Protection of submissions and witnesses 22-23 Claims by ministers that information should not be disclosed 24-32 Evidence provided in confidence 33-36 Publication of evidence 37-40 Statutory committees 41 Committees concerned with administrative aspects of government 42 Committees investigating the actions of individual ministers or officials 43 Official witnesses from statutory authorities 44 B. Party Committees 45-51 C. Non-Parliamentary Public Inquiries (Including Royal Commissions) and Speeches 52-60 Speeches 52 Foreign Service 55 Royal Commissions 56-58 State inquiries (parliamentary and other) 59 Courts 60 D. Guidelines relating to access by Individual Members of Parliament to Public Servants and Officers of Statutory Authorities 61-67 GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES FOR OFFICIAL WITNESSES BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES AND RELATED MATTERS Introduction 1. These guidelines are based on the proposition that reasoned public discussion of the factual and technical background to policies and their administration leads to a better understanding of the objectives and process of government. In the Australian system of parliamentary government, and consistent with the traditional understanding of ministerial responsibility, the public advocacy and defence of government policies and administration has traditionally been, and should remain, the preserve of ministers, not officials. But subject to this, the guidelines are aimed at encouraging the freest possible flow of information between the public service, the Parliament and the public. 2. The guidelines apply primarily to the preparation of submissions and the provision of evidence to parliamentary committees by officials. The relevance of the guidelines to contexts outside parliamentary committees, including party committees, royal commissions, speeches, public inquiries and court appearances is noted in sections B and C. Section D contains guidelines for the provision of information to individual members of parliament by officials. A. Parliamentary Committees 3. The purpose of the guidelines is to assist officials appearing before parliamentary committees, by informing them of the principles they are required by the Government to follow, recognising that the Parliament is entitled to be properly and adequately informed on the operation of the Executive. 4. The Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (the ' Privilege Committee') has prepared an 'exposure report' for consideration by Senators and Members. Although the report has not yet been considered, officers should note the recommendations which have particular relevance to the guidelines as indicated below. Preliminary to an inquiry 5. As a matter of practice, requests for an official to attend a committee inquiry in an official capacity, or to provide material to it, are made through the relevant Minister. 6. A Minister may delegate to the departmental Secretary the responsibility of deciding the official(s) considered by the Government most appropriate to provide the information sought by the committee from the department. It is important that the official(s) selected should have sufficient responsibility or be sufficiently close to the particular work area to be able to satisfy the committee's requirements. 7. Witnesses are to prepare themselves thoroughly before hearings including, as appropriate, by consultation with the Minister (and, if required, the Minister representing him or her in the other House), e.g. on possible claims that it would be in the public interest to withhold certain documents or oral evidence or requests for the hearing of evidence in camera. Officers might also make themselves aware of recommendations of the Privilege Committee relating to the rights of witnesses (R.35, based substantially on current Senate practice) and matters which may be treated as a contempt of the Parliament (particularly R.28) . Preparation of written material 8. In the normal course, a committee should be provided with a written statement on which subsequent oral evidence will be based. In addition, where written questions have been forwarded by the committee, written replies should also be provided. All initial and supplementary written material (authorised in accordance with these guidelines) should be forwarded to the secretary of the committee. 9. When the interests of several departments are involved, adequate consultation is to take place in preparing material and making arrangements for witnesses to attend. 10. Departmental submissions to parliamentary committees should be cleared within the department, and normally with the Minister, in accordance with arrangements approved by the Minister(s) concerned. 11. Any such submission should not take policy positions, that is, it: (a) should not advocate, defend or canvass the merits of government policies ( including policies of previous Commonwealth governments, or state or foreign governments) (b) may describe those policies and the administrative arrangements and procedures involved in implementing them; (c) should not identify considerations which have led to a ministerial or government decision or possible decision, in areas of any sensitivity, unless those considerations have already been made public or the Minister authorises the department to identify them; (d) may after consultation with the Minister, and especially when the Government is encouraging public discussion of issues, set out policy options and list the main advantages and disadvantages, providing that it does not reflect on the merits of any judgment on those options which may have been made by the Government, or is otherwise partisan to a particular viewpoint. The Privilege Committee has recommended that 'A departmental officer (should) not be asked to give opinions on matters of policy, and shall be given reasonable opportunity to refer questions asked of him to his superior or to the appropriate Minister, (R.35 (14).) 12. In relation to the matters prescribed in 11 (a) above, the proper course is for ministers to make written submissions or to appear-or to arrange for ministers representing them to appear-personally before committees, or to invite committees to submit questions on policy issues in writing. 13. In relation to 11 (c), the normal course is for ministers to canvass the material in these categories, but departments should ensure that if departments are to canvass such material, it is clearly brought to attention when the submission is submitted for clearance. 14. Other matters may be considered for inclusion in a submission which are factual or are only background material, but which also have wider implications because they are within an area of public or party political controversy, or because of the timing, e.g. in a pre-election period. This points to the need for those preparing material to give thorough consideration to any wider ramifications of the matter under inquiry, and to bring any such matters to the Minister's attention. 15. A request for more time to prepare evidence may be made to a committee by the Minister (or the department acting on his or her behalf) if the notice is considered insufficient. (The Privilege Committee has recommended that 'a witness shall be given reasonable notice . . . and an indication of the matters expected to be dealt with' (R.35 (3)).) Conduct during hearings 16. The role of an official witness is to speak to any statement provided to the committee and to provide factual and background material to assist understanding of the issues involved. 17. The guidelines outlined above relating to written material apply also to oral evidence. 18. In addition, officials should not answer questions nor undertake to provide documents which could give rise to a claim of public interest immunity, unless the question of immunity has already been considered (see paragraphs 24-32 below ) and a decision arrived at. 19. It is envisaged that an officer may ask the person chairing the committee to consider whether questions are in order, in accordance with paragraph 11. If an official witness is directed to answer such a question, and has not (in line with paragraph 7) previously cleared the matter with his or her Minister, the officer should ask to be allowed to defer the answer until such clearance has been obtained. 20. As an alternative to the approach suggested in paragraph 19, it may be appropriate for the official witness to refer to the written material provided to the committee and offer, if the Committee wishes, to seek elaboration from the Minister or to request that the answer to a particular question be reserved for submission in writing. 21. It is important as questions are answered during hearings that witnesses should take care not to intrude into responsibilities of other departments and agencies (see also paragraph 9 above). Where a question falls within the administration of another department or agency, an official witness may request that it be directed to that department or agency or be deferred until that department or agency is consulted. Protection of submissions and witnesses 22. Where a written submission is made to a committee at the invitation of the committee, whether it be of a general nature or directed specifically to the department concerned the preparation and making of that submission is protected by parliamentary privilege if received as evidence by the committee. In particular, it would follow that such a submission would enjoy absolute privilege with respect to defamation. However, protection would not automatically extend to copies or the substance of the submission unless the committee authorised publication. The privilege would also not extend to any unauthorised disclosure of the submission. Where written material that has not been sought by a committee is prepared and submitted to it, it cannot be assumed that such material would be protected by parliamentary privilege until such time as it had been formally received as evidence or publication authorised by a committee (see also paragraph 40). (The Privilege Committee has recommended legislation to declare that absolute privilege cover, among other things ''all things said, done or written . . . by any persons ordered or authorised to attend before . . . any Committee, sub-committee or other group or body of senators or members appointed by or with the authority of (Parliament).'' (R.1). ) 23. It should be noted that officials who appear as witnesses before a parliamentary committee may be obliged to answer questions or produce documents which might tend to be self incriminating (see also paragraph 41). In such cases parliamentary privilege protects them against only that evidence itself being used against them outside the parliament, e.g. as evidence against them in proceedings before the courts. A witness may request the committee to take the evidence in camera in those circumstances. (The Privilege Committee has recommended a procedure for considering claims by a witness that he or she not answer a question on grounds of self-incrimination (R.35(9)).) Claims by ministers that information should not be disclosed 24. Claims that information should be withheld from disclosure on grounds of public interest (''public interest immunity'') should only be made by ministers (normally the responsible Minister in consultation with the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister). 25. The guidelines, and particularly paragraphs 11 and 30-40, should be read in the context of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The Act establishes minimum standards of disclosure of documents held by Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities. Any non-public document or material which would not be exempt under this legislation should (with the knowledge of the Minister in sensitive cases or where the Minister has a particular interest or has been involved) be produced or given, on request, to a parliamentary committee. Moreoever, it may be in the public interest to provide to the Parliament a document or information which would technically be exempt under the Act, and the exemptions in the Act should thus not be applied without proper regard to the role and functions of the Parliament. In particular the following different circumstances apply in relation to Parliament: (a) the possibility of evidence being tendered confidentially to a parliamentary committee and being protected against disclosure or publication ( see paragraphs 33-36); under the Freedom of Information Act the exemption provisions represent the only protection from disclosure to the world at large; (b) the need to balance the public interest in protecting the documents with the public interest in parliament pursuing its investigative functions. 26. A number of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act relate to matters in respect of which a claim of public interest immunity might be made- see guidelines 30 and 31 below. In the case of the other exemptions, the matters with which they are concerned would not ordinarily provide a basis for a claim of public interest immunity but do provide guidance as to circumstances in which it would be appropriate to raise the possibility of evidence being tendered in confidence to a parliamentary committee-see guideline 34 below. 27. As far as practicable, the question whether a claim of immunity should be made should be decided before a hearing, so that a certificate by the Minister can be produced. 28. As a matter of practice, before making a claim of immunity, a minister might explore with a committee whether the information it seeks can be provided in a form or under conditions which would not give rise to a need for the claim (including in camera, as provided below). (Note also that the Privilege Committee has recommended that ''A witness (should) be invited to produce documents or records relevant to the committee's inquiry and an order (should) be made only where the committee has resolved that the circumstances warrant such an order'' (R.35(2).) 29. If an official witness, when giving evidence to a committee, believes that circumstances have arisen to justify a claim of immunity, the official should request a postponement of the evidence, or of the relevant part of the evidence, until the Minister can be consulted. 30. Documents-or oral evidence-in respect of which ministers may wish to consider claiming immunity depending on the balance of public interest, may include matters which fall into the following categories that coincide with some of those appearing in Part IV of the Freedom of Information Act dealing with exemption provisions (for a more detailed understanding of these, reference should be made to the Act and to separate guidelines on its operation issued by the Attorney-General's Department): (a) documents whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, defence, or international relations; or relations with the States; including disclosure of documents obtained in confidence from other governments ; (b) Cabinet documents and other documents disclosing any deliberation or decision of the Cabinet, other than a document by which a decision was officially published or to the extent that the document contains purely factual material where its disclosure would not reveal a decision or deliberation not previously officially published; (c) Executive Council documents and other documents disclosing any deliberation or advice of the Executive Council, other than a document by which an act of the Governor-General-in-Council was officially published or to the extent that the document contains purely factual material where its disclosure would not reveal a decision or deliberation not previously officially published; (d) internal working documents which would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purpose of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of the Government of the Commonwealth, where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest; (e) evidence affecting law enforcement or protection of public safety which would, or could reasonably be expected to: prejudice the investigation of a possible breach of the law or the enforcement of the law in a particular instance; disclose, or enable a person to ascertain the existence or identity of, a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or endanger the life or physical safety of any person; (f) evidence subject to legal professional privilege. 31. In addition the following considerations may affect a decision whether to make documents or information available: (a) secrecy provisions of Acts: the requirement on officials to observe the secrecy provisions of enactments may vary from case to case and advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department when occasions involving such provisions arise; (b) court orders: in circumstances where the giving of evidence would appear to be restricted by a court and public disclosure could be in contempt of court the advice of the Attorney-General's Department should be sought. 32. Documents, and oral information relating to documents, given one of the usual national security classifications of 'confidential', 'secret' or 'top secret' would normally be included under one of the categories in paragraph 30, particularly 30 (a). Before producing a document bearing such a classification, an official witness should seek an appropriate clearance. (Note: It does not follow that documents without formal security classification may not be the subject of a claim of immunity. Nor does it follow that classified documents may not in any circumstances be produced. Each document should be considered on its own merits and, where classified, in consulation with the originator.) Evidence provided in confidence 33. There may be occasions when a minister (or, on his or her behalf, the department secretary) would wish, on balancing of the public interests involved, to raise with the person chairing the committee the possibility of an official producing documents or giving oral evidence in camera, and on the basis that the information be not disclosed or published except with the Minister's consent ( see also paragraph 37 below). 34. These circumstances might include: (a) cases where, although a claim of immunity could be justified under 30 (a)-( f), the Minister considers that the balance of public interest lies in making information available to the committee on the basis that it be heard in camera and not disclosed or published except with his or her consent; (b) cases where, while a claim of immunity may not be justified, there are other special considerations justifying the committee being asked to take evidence privately. Examples, which parallel other exemption provisions in Part IV of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, are: (i) evidence affecting law enforcement or protection of public safety which would, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the fair trial of any person or the impartial adjudication of a particular case disclose lawful methods or procedures of law enforcement in a way that might prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods of protecting public safety; (ii) evidence public disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on financial or property interests of the Commonwealth; (iii) evidence public disclosure of which would prejudice the attainment of the objects or effectiveness of procedures or methods for the conduct of tests, examinations or audits of a Commonwealth agency; (iv) evidence public disclosure of which would have a substantial adverse effect on the management or assessment of personnel, or on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of a Commonwealth agency including the conduct by the Commonwealth of industrial relations; (v) evidence unreasonably disclosing information relating to the personal affairs of any person; (note also that the Privilege Committee has recommended that a committee may consider taking evidence reflecting on a person, in camera (R. 35 (10)); (vi) evidence which would reveal business affairs, including trade secrets or other commercially sensitive information; (vii) evidence, public disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the management of the economy or on the conduct of business generally; (viii) evidence containing material obtained in confidence; (c) cases where similar or identical evidence has been previously given in camera to other hearings of the committee or other committees of the Parliament and has not been made public. 35. If when giving evidence to a committee an official witness believes that circumstances have arisen to justify a request that evidence be heard in camera, the official should make such a request if the possibility has been foreshadowed with the Minister (see paragraph 7) or should ask for the postponement of the evidence or of the relevant part of the evidence until the Minister can be consulted. (The Privilege Committee has recommended that ''A witness who makes application for any or all of his evidence to be heard in camera (should) be invited to give reasons for such application, and may do so in camera. If the application is not granted, the witness shall be given reasons for that decision in public session (R. 35 (6)).) 36. In the event of an official being asked by a committee to give evidence ' off the record', the official should request a postponement until the Minister can be consulted, unless the possibility has been clearly foreshadowed with the Minister. Publication of evidence 37. Authority for the publication of evidence, whether in public or in camera, is vested in the Houses and invariably delegated to committees (see sub-section 2 (2) of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, standing order 340 of the House of Representatives, standing order 302 of the Senate and resolutions of appointment of committees). It is to be noted that evidence taken in camera is confidential and its publication without a committee's consent could be determined to constitute a contempt of either or both Houses (see Privilege Committee report, R. 29). It should also be noted that section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act respects privilege in relation to material submitted to parliament. 38. If a committee proposes to publish in camera evidence given by an official witness and seeks concurrence of that witness, the matter should be taken up first with the Ministers or with the Secretary to the Department acting on the Minister's behalf. It is normal practice for a committee not to authorise the publication of in camera evidence without the concurrence of the witness, although such concurrence is not legally required. (See also paragraph 41.) 39. After perusing the record of their evidence, official witnesses should propose for the committee's consideration any necessary corrections for incorporation or noting in the published record. Where these affect the substance of the evidence previously given, it may be necessary to seek the agreement of the committee on the way in which the correction should be made, e. g. by tendering a subsequent statement. The Privilege Committee has recomended that ''Reasonable opportunity (should) be afforded to witnesses to request correction in the transcript of their witnesses to request correction in the transcript of their evidence and to put before the committee additional material supplementary to their evidence (R.35(15)). 40. If an official witnesses believes, after perusing the record, that he or she has omitted to give some relevant evidence, the official should, having consulted with the Minister (or department Secretary), seek leave of the committee to lodge a further statement supplementing the earlier evidence or to give further oral evidence. All supplementary written material (authorised in accordance with these guidelines) should be forwarded to the secretary of the committee. Note, however, that it cannot be assumed that such correspondence, other than that either sought by the committee or formally received as evidence or ordered to be published, would be protected by privilege (see paragraph 22). Statutory committees 41. The Public Works Committee Act and the Public Accounts Committee Act provide for the summoning of witnesses and raise some special considerations, e. g. in section 23 of the Public Works Committee Act special provision is made in relation to the hearing of evidence on confidential matters and in section 19 of the Public Accounts Committee Act and section 25 of the Public Works Committee Act in relation to self incriminating evidence. In these and similar cases, the special provisions of the relevant Act take precedence. Committees concerned with administrative aspects of government 42. Where a committee is one which, by its nature, concentrates on the administrative aspects of government and the subject of the committee's inquiry is directed towards the examination of departmental administration and practice, it is for the Secretary to the department, with the general consent of the relevant Minister, to use his or her discretion as to the extent to which aspects of these guidelines, such as the clearing of written evidence and the selection of witnesses, are to be followed. Committees investigating the actions of individual Ministers or officials 43. Where a committee is inquiring into the personal actions of a minister (or official) and seeks information from officials, there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate for the requirements set out above for clearance of evidence to be followed. Official witnesses from statutory authorities 44. Members of authorities which have statutory public information and education roles clearly are able to express views on the policy responsibilities of their authorities. However, care should be taken to avoid taking partisan positions on matters of political controversy. In other respects these guidelines should be followed as far as is relevant including in relation to claims of public interest immunity (see paragraph 25). The guidelines apply fully to the staff of statutory authorities. B. Party committees 45. Officials are made freely available to brief Party committees to assist them in understanding the technical and factual background to government policies and proposals. The guidelines for submissions to and appearances before parliamentary committees apply, subject to the following, to briefing of Party committees by officials. 46. Ministers may authorise officers of their departments, or of statutory authorities for which they are responsible, to appear before Government and Opposition Party committees to provide briefings or background material on government or ministerial decisions and proposals, including details and/or explanations of proposed legislation. 47. Committee requests for briefing in the above terms should be directed to the Minister concerned. The Minister may then authorise the department or authority to take in hand the necessary arrangements. It will also be open to ministers to initiate proposals for briefing of committees, where they consider this to be desirable. 48. In providing briefing, officials will not be expected or authorised to express opinions on matters of a policy or of a Party political nature (see paragraph 11). 49. Where considered necessary or desirable, ministers may elect to be present at discussions with Government Party committees, to deal with questions of a policy or Party political nature. 50. Where the Minister does not attend the committee proceedings, officials should keep the Minister informed of the nature of the discussions and of any matters not able to be resolved by the officials to the committee's satisfaction . 51. Party committees do not have the powers or privileges of parliamentary committees, and consequently officials appearing before them do not have the protection afforded to witnesses before parliamentary committees (see paragraphs 22 and 23). C. Non-parliamentary public inquiries (including royal commissions) and speeches 52. The guidelines for submissions to and appearances before parliamentary committees are to apply to officials' submissions to and appearances before other public inquiries, and to the preparation and presentation of speeches by officials in their official capacity, with the exceptions and additions contained in paragraphs 53-60. Speeches 53. Officers, other than in areas where national security or other reasons demand confidentiality, and subject to these guidelines, should regard it as a normal part of their duties to make themselves available to attend and address conferences in their areas of professional expertise. Speeches in such circumstances should aim to provide the necessary factual information and analytical material to promote informed public discussion. Such speeches and appearances should be regarded as part of the normal interchange of information with community groups. 54. In the case of submissions and speeches in non-parliamentary contexts the Minister may decide to authorise the Secretary to the department to clear material himself or herself, with reference of the material to the Minister at the Secretary's discretion. Within ministerial guidance the Secretary will institute such rules in the department as he or she considers appropriate. Apart from prepared submissions and speeches, officials will often find it necessary to speak in their official capacity without having the opportunity to clear the substance of their comments (for example, in relation to open discussions at public seminars). In such cases officials should pay particular regard to rules laid down by the departmental secretary, and the Public Service Board Guidelines on Official Conduct concerning public comment by public servants. In particular, they should avoid taking partisan positions on policy issues or matters of public controversy. Foreign service 55. Heads of Australian diplomatic or consular posts and senior officials serving abroad have the responsibility in countries to which they are accredited to explain, advocate or defend the Government's international and domestic policies through public speeches, conferences, media inquiries, appearances before host government parliamentary committees, etc. The opportunity may not arise for clearance by ministers or department secretaries, as appropriate. It is expected, however, that public comment will be consistent with authorised policies in all respects. Royal commissions 56. Officials appearing before Royal Commissions established by the Commonwealth should also take note of the provisions of the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The categories of evidence enumerated in paragraph 30 above are appropriate also to claims of public interest immunity before a Commonwealth Royal Commission. The circumstances in which the Commission might be asked to hear evidence in camera are also likely to be the same as those listed at paragraph 34 above. 57. Except in limited circumstances, an official appearing before a Commonwealth Royal Commission may not refuse to answer a question (or to produce a document or other thing) on the ground that the giving of the answer or the production of the document or thing might tend to be self-incriminatory. This rule does not apply where the offence in respect of which the official might be so incriminated is an offence with which the official has been charged and the charge has not been finally dealt with by a court or otherwise disposed of. 58. Where guidance is required regarding counsel for officials-including about legal aid-advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department. State inquiries (parliamentary and other) 59. Where additional guidance or counsel is required regarding officials' appearance before and evidence to State inquiries, advice should be sought from the Attorney-General's Department. Similarly where a claim of public interest immunity may be under consideration, advice should be sought from the Attorney- General's Department. Courts 60. Where officials require further guidance or counsel in respect of their appearance before and evidence to courts of law-particularly concerning possible claims of public interest immunity-advice should be sought from the Attorney- General's Department. D. Access by individual members of parliament to public servants and officers of statutory authorities 61. Requests for information are usually made through the responsible Minister, but it is recognised that direct approaches to officials for routine factual information, particularly on constituency matters, are traditional and appropriate. 62. In any event, an official should inform the department secretary of any request for information and the response, and inform the Minister of any matter which is likely to involve him or her. 63. When a request by a member of parliament amounts to no more than a request for readily available factual information, the information should obviously be provided. 64. There may be other occasions where, in the judgment of officials, a member' s request raises sensitive issues, for example, where expressions of opinion are sought of government policies or alternative policies, as distinct from explanation of existing policies. Officials will not be expected or authorised to express opinions on government policies, policy options or matters of a Party political nature. Information provided may, however, include details of administrative arrangements and procedures involved in implementation of approved policies or legislation. 65. Where a request is made which seeks expressions of opinion on government policies or policy options, it would be appropriate to suggest that the member pursue the matter with the Minister. Similar action would be appropriate if a request raised other issues of a sensitive nature, or where the answering of a request would necessitate the use of substantial resources of the department or authority. 66. Care should be taken to avoid unauthorised disclosure of classified or otherwise confidential information, for example, where a breach of personal or commercial privacy could be involved. 67. Where an official considers that the terms of a request would require going beyond the authorised scope of the above arrangements, the official should so indicate to the Member, and will be at liberty to raise the matter with the Secretary to the department or authority and the Minister and, if desired, with the Public Service Board. Senator GRIMES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the guidelines. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed. Clause 1 (Short title). Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J.Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J.Collard, S. J. Martin, K. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Mason, C. V. J.Durack, P. D. Messner, A. J.Evans, Jack Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. (Teller)Haines, J. Scott, D. B.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Harradine, B. Townley, M.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D.Coates, J Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Primmer, C. G.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F.Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M.Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W.Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C.Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O.Jones, G. N. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N.Archer, B. R. Coleman, R. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 2 and 3-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 4. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.06) —I move: (1) page 2, proposed new sub-section 13 (5), lines 34 to 36, leave out 'in accordance with a law made by the Parliament for the purposes of that sub- section or, if there is no such law, as determined'. (2) Page 3, proposed new sub-section 13 (6), lines 37 and 38, leave out the proposed sub-section. This amendment deals with the following: The reference in sub-section (4) of this section to the order of the relative success at an election of the senators for a State shall be construed as a reference to the order of their relative success as determined in accordance with a law made by the Parliament for the purposes of that sub-section . . . Essentially the item here relates to the seniority of senators. Under the Constitution the Senate has the power to determine the order of relative success of senators after a double dissolution. Effectively, that is the only area which is of any import. Last year, during the changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, we passed a new section which instructed the electoral commissioner, in the event of a double dissolution and after the election had been declared, to recount the ballot as if only half the number of vacancies were to be filled, and on the determination of who would have filled the positions if only half had been elected at that election to notify those orders of success to the Senate. However the Senate was still left with a determination as to which of those methods it would choose, whether it would choose to follow the relative order of success as determined by that recount under the Electoral Act or whether it would follow what are now the conventional methods, that is, in terms of the order of relative success as determined by the way the senators come to a full quota. When one examines the intricacies of the matter, one sees relatively soon that it is possible for those lists to differ. The area in which they would probably most significantly differ would probably relate to senators from my own Party. If we had at a double dissolution a full quota, for example, it would mean we would come in third or fourth in most States. However, it does not necessarily mean that we would come in at that order on a recount as determined under the Electoral Act. I am not concerned with the substance of which of those views should be the one that the Senate finally determines as being the most accurate reflection of the views of the electorate. That, I believe, is a debate for another time. However, I believe that in conjunction with this proposal that item is extraneous and has nothing to do with the operation we are looking at. It is indeed a separate matter to determine the relative order of success. I have moved the amendment and preshadowed the other amendment as they concern the same matter. I hope the Committee will support these amendments which do nothing more than take out that discussion of the relative success. If they are omitted, the power to determine the relative success at an election of senators for a State will still be held as it is now by the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.09) —The Government opposes the amendment put forward by the Australian Democrats and the foreshadowed amendment for the reason that the matter the Democrats are trying to remove from the Bill, although arguably outside the immediate focus of the legislation, which is to create a system of simultaneous elections, nonetheless represents a rational and reasonable implementation of what has been the long-understood convention in the determination of long term and short term senators. As such it was a proposal which won the unanimous support of the Australian Constitutional Convention in Hobart in 1976 and was reaffirmed also in Adelaide in 1983 in the context of discussions about conventions of the Constitution, about what should be incorporated in the Constitution and about what sorts of archaic and outmoded features should be removed. Senator Crichton-Browne —Was that a unanimous vote? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was a unanimous vote. It was put without dissent. That can be found at page 247 of the transcript of proceedings at the Adelaide convention. It is a perfectly innocuous provision put in there for the sake of abundant caution perhaps and for making clear and articulated that which might not otherwise be so clear. As such it is not doing any harm. I think the point which the Australian Democrats have taken, while understandable, is in some respects, if I can dare say so, fairly pedantic. It is outside the scope of the main thrust of the Bill. It is an opportunity to clean up, to tidy up and make explicit that which has been inexplicit and arguably dangerously inexplicit for a long time. It would not be seen to be the sort of thing which so far as the actual substance is concerned would excite controversy. It is something about which there has been general agreement. As to the mode of implementation and the method of counting whether by resolution of the Senate or by legislation-I suppose reasonable men or women might differ on that-the proposal before us is for this to be capable of being determined by legislation. As such I commend this proposal to the Senate. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.12) —I am sorry that I had to go out of the Senate and did not hear the full flavour of the debate on the amendment of the Australian Democrats to the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill. I regret very much that I did not hear what Senator Macklin had to say. I understand that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will support this amendment. Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator DURACK —No? Senator Gareth Evans —We will support the Bill as it stands. Senator DURACK —I see. The Government will support the Bill. I thought the Attorney-General was in his usual co-operative frame of mind! I now know where we are. The view of the Opposition is that it supports the principle of sub- clause 4 of proposed new section 13 of the Bill. This is so because we believe that the right course for this Senate to follow is the convention established over the years that the seniority of senators is determined by their order of election. Although that may not have been perfectly clearly stated in the drafting where sub-clause (4) (a) states: (a) the Senate shall cause the names of those senators to be placed on a list in order of their relative success at the election, beginning with the name of the most successful senator; In fact that to me means what in fact has occurred under the convention that we have all observed in this chamber since, as far as I know, Federation. As I understand it some hidden meanings are possible in the phrase 'relative success' . In order to determine that, sub-clause (5) and sub-clause (6) enable those hidden depths to be expressed as a result of an Act of Parliament. The purpose of the Democrats and their amendment is to enable these hidden depths to be exposed by some mysterious process in the Senate. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition does not support either sub-clause (5) or sub-clause (6). We would prefer that the matter be left in its traditional form. I think that perhaps the drafting of sub-clause (4) could be improved to make it perfectly clear that the order of seniority should be determined by the senator's order of election. Without having to make that amendment I think that certainly the wording of sub-clause (4) is good enough to achieve that purpose. We are opposed to sub-clause (5). In fact, we would want to leave out sub-clause (5) and sub- clause (6). I think in order to do so I have actually to move to leave out sub- clause (5) and then support the Democrats who want to leave out sub-clause (6). The CHAIRMAN —Senator Durack, you cannot actually do that at the moment as there is another amendment before the Chair which has to be resolved first. You might subsequently move, by leave, to resolve the matter one way or the other. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.16) —The Opposition seems to have got itself into a muddle. Whatever is a rational approach to this Bill, the Constitution Alteration (Simultaneous Elections) Bill, removing the entire sub- clause (5) and sub-clause (6) is not it. Either one leaves sub-clause (5) and sub-clause (6) there as they are to be determined by legislation which is what the Bill now provides for or, alternatively, we take out the particular words that the Australian Democrats propose to take out which leaves the relative order of success method to be determined by resolution of the Senate. Senator Haines —Which is what we currently do now. Senator GARETH EVANS —I thank Senator Haines. Either we go with the Democrats amendment leaving it to be determined by resolution of the Senate or we come with the Government Bill, leaving it to be resolved by legislation should the Parliament so determine. If we chop it out altogether we will create a vacuum which will be wonderful for the legal profession for decades into the hereafter, but which is not going to help anybody else terribly much. The Government remains reasonably keen while not wishing to be put to the wall over it on its original proposal. If we cannot have our original proposal, being good pragmatic Conservatives that we are, we will stick with the status quo in which case we will support Senator Macklin. I really think it is up to Senator Durack to work out on behalf of the Opposition, while I am still talking long enough for him to work it out, which of those two options he really wants to take. I do not think it is a viable alternative to chop out sub-clause (5) and sub-clause (6) altogether. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I think it would be better if the Committee would agree to separate the two amendments of Senator Macklin which the Senate agreed to take together. I think the Committee should look first at the words proposed to be left out of sub-clause (5) which is amendment No. (1). If those words are removed Senator Durack, no doubt, could move to remove the remainder of the words in that sub-clause. We could then look at sub-clause (6), which is amendment No. (2), separately. What Senator Durack would like to do if the words are left there is up to him. He can still move, by leave, to remove the whole clause. Is that proposal acceptable to the Committee? There being no objection I will allow that course to be followed. Amendment (2)-by leave-withdrawn. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.19) —The question really is not as simple to determine as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) would have us believe. What he seems to be saying is that we should move a further amendment if we want to achieve the current situation. I do not know whether the Government is firmly keen on that. Senator Gareth Evans —The Democrats' amendment gets us to the present situation because it leaves in the words. Senator DURACK —That is right. We do not want the present situation to continue. I understood the Government did not want the present situation to continue either. As I understand it, the Government wants clause 4 as we do. Senator Gareth Evans —There is no argument about clause 4. We all want clause 4. Senator DURACK —In accordance with the resolution of the Constitutional Convention, the convention that has always applied we want no discretion on the part of the Senate or of the Parliament in relation to determining the order of senators. We want and I understand the Government wants-or I thought it did-that the order of seniority of senators should be determined by their order of election. Senator Gareth Evans —But that assumes there is no ambiguity about proposed new sub-section (4), which there is as it now stands. Senator DURACK —That is the trouble. The Attorney-General is saying now that there is a great ambiguity about sub-section (4). If so, we had better clean it up. Senator Gareth Evans —No, we just accept either the Democrats' or ours. Senator DURACK —That is not going to achieve the Attorney's purpose, either. Senator Gareth Evans —I am perfectly happy with my purpose achieved in the way it is in the Bill. Senator DURACK —I thought the Attorney, in quoting the view of the Constitutional Convention, which is to the effect that the present, longstanding convention is that the seniority of senators is determined by their order of election, was telling us that that is the one we should be following; by changing the Constitution so that it is no longer just a convention but becomes a constitutional provision. Senator Gareth Evans —No, let me explain. Senator DURACK —Go ahead. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.23) —For the sake of clarification I say that all the Australian Constitutional Convention has decided is to put in something in the language of proposed new sub-section (4) using the language of relative success. What has occurred to people is that the words 'relative success' are potentially ambiguous because it is not just a matter of counting out in terms of the number of votes one receives but also how those votes are counted and the particular quota which is applied. This is the problem that was identified by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform on a bipartisan basis. The words 'relative success' are themselves ambiguous. Relative success and the method by which it is determined can be resolved by resolution of the Senate as it has been up until now or we can go a step further and enshrine it in legislation. I think that if we start playing around with the notion of relative success which is contained in proposed new sub-section (4), all we are going to do at this late hour is introduce new complexities into what is by now a reasonably well understood-albeit not by me-situation as to what relative success means and what the different alternatives are. So either way we are not going all the way in this particular constitutional provision to spell it out. We are merely creating a procedure by which it may be determined. The only argument is whether that procedure is resolution of the Senate or legislation. I can appreciate the point that Senator Durack is making but I think it would require more drafting, thought and time than we are capable of putting into it at this late stage of the proceedings. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.25) — I raise a matter concerning this point. During the next half Senate election there will, for probably the one and only time in the history of this country, be seven vacancies. After the next election the interim Senate will comprise the current Senate plus two additional senators from each of the States. Those two additional senators will be the first two non -sitting candidates elected. We should bear in mind that there is also a new block or list system of voting, call it what you will. Am I to understand that in that event the first two non-sitting candidates elected will be those who first reach a quota? Senator Macklin —No, it is up to the Senate to determine at the moment. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, it is up to the Senate to determine now but what about in the event of the next election? Who is to determine that? Will it be the remaining senators or, in fact, the then Senate which should comprise the existing senators plus two from each State? I know that over the years we have adopted by convention the policy that the seniority of senators, the relative success of senators, would be determined by the order of their election. Senator Haines —The order in which they get a quota. Senator HARRADINE —Exactly-the order of their election being, as Senator Haines says, the order in which they get a quota. That question also arises in respect of the forthcoming election, before the Senate is able to make a determination. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.26) —I think this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs we now have before the Committee because the Attorney-General has more or less admitted that the problem we now have arises from a recommendation and a drafting provision which he believes to be ambiguous. I do not know why there could not be a draft which makes it perfectly clear that the present convention should be enshrined in the Constitution. The present convention is not necessarily determined by the words 'relative success' as such . The convention is based on what we have done, namely, the fact that we have drawn up this list in accordance with the way in which people have been elected, the order in which they have been elected; that is, the order in which they reach quotas. I do not know why we cannot get drafting in this legislation which does just that. I take it that Senator Harradine agrees with that. Senator Haines —Why can't we put in a definition of 'relative success'? Senator DURACK —Yes. We are nearly at the adjournment hour now, I do not see why the draftsman could not come up with something by tomorrow morning to do just that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.27) —The short point is, I think, that we are drafting a Constitution here rather than a piece of legislation, and since there is likely to be some trickiness involved in producing the kind of provision which is able to distinguish between the order in which people are elected by reference to the order in which they achieve quotas as distinct from their order of success in terms of the number of primary votes they receive-and that is the basic distinction I think one has to juggle- the view that was taken was: Let us just get the principle there that it is not at large to determine the order in which people are appointed in the short or long term as the case may be, it has to be by reference to relative success; let us leave the complexities of defining what is relative success to either legislation or resolutions of the House as the case may be. That is not a course that it is appropriate to adopt when one is talking about legislation but a perfectly appropriate course to adopt when one is talking about a constitution which just sets the general principles rather than arguably the very detailed rules. I think the drafting problem would prove rather quickly to be that it was necessary to have some very complicated drafting to put this matter absolutely beyond doubt in such a way as to enshrine it and lock it up. Senator Haines —That is why we have always left it. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is why we have left it to the Senate or, as the case may be, to legislation as is now proposed. I really do suggest that that is the only question before us, given that this is not an ordinary piece of legislation . It is a constitutional change we are talking about. We ought not to fuss about this and just satisfy ourselves whether we want to go down the track of leaving it to the Senate or to legislation which is something about which I feel fairly relaxed and I think the Government feels fairly relaxed and vote on it on that basis rather than try to embark up on a drafing exercise at this late stage-not this late hour but this late stage of the proceedings. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.29) —The point raised by Senator Harradine would not be met one way or the other. Quite frankly, the problem he raised probably has all the hallmarks of a legal battle to be held at some later stage because this clause states only that legisation will determine the order of seniority of senators. If one removes it the situation will not be affected one way or the other. What I was attempting to do with my amendment was to restore the status quo and simply say that the matter would be determined by the Senate and not by legislation which means by the House of Representatives and the Senate. I was seeking to leave the status quo because I did not think it was appropriate to have it is this Bill. It seems to be a matter for another time and another place , rather than in here. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The PRESIDENT —Order! I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.30) —I raise a matter which comes within the portfolio of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). I ask her: When will she make available the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consultative Committee on Education under Self-Government? It is a report which I understand she has had for some time and I would like to know when she will table it in the Parliament and thus make it available to the public so that it can be commented upon in the current debate on the advent of self-government. It is clear from the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission which was tabled today that education under self-government is a very relevant consideration. We have before us the White report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, we have the task force on self government; and we have the Grants Commission report. In view of the importance of education I ask the Minister to make the report available immediately or at least to let us know why she will not make it available for us to consider. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.32 p.m.