Wednesday, 5 September 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: Pornography To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we are totally opposed to any legislation which allows video films, films, and books dealing with sex, drugs, crime, cruelty and revolting phenomena, to be imported, produced and dealt with commercially in Australia. We, the undersigned request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede 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 disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measure 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 Sir John Carrick (from 195 citizens) and Scott (from 418 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 personnel, 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-United States' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Primmer (from 54 citizens) and Zakharov (from 57 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piece-meal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urges 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 a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will support the above claims. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 66 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 31 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 18 citizens). 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 the 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 changes 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 172 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 4,214 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'upholds the principles of disengagement and disarmament' (ALP Platform 1982, E ); and will: 'oppose the development, proliferation, possession and use of nuclear . . . and other techniques of mass destruction' (ALP Platform 1982, E. 34); 'attach high priority to preventing the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and to this end will not allow commercial considerations to govern Australia's anti-proliferation strategy' (ALP Platform 1982, E. 35c); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1982, F. 48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia, respectfully show that we deplore the use of taxation funds to allow privileges and travel entitlements for homosexual staff members of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the same basis as legally married couples. As taxpayers, we humbly request that this decision be reversed immediately and our taxation contribution be used for more urgent needs, such as defence, housing, education, roads, transport and social security benefits. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 296 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) that since European occupancy of Australia three-quarters of this nation's rainforests have been destroyed forever; (b) that all remaining rainforest in Australia covers only 0.25 per cent of the total landmass and could be grouped into a circle of 70 kilometres in diameter and in doing so: (i) condemns the Queensland State Government and the Douglas Shire Council for the construction of a road through the Cape Tribulation National Park, an area listed on the National Estate because of its unique heritage value as the largest area of coastal rainforest in Australia, (ii) condemns the preposterous suggestion of the Opposition spokesperson on the environment that a private environmental company be set up to buy the Daintree rainforest as contrary to the fact that the unique heritage of Australia is a priceless community resource totally unsuitable for private sale, and (iii) calls on the Federal Government to act now in accordance with the power it already has to proclaim immediately the Daintree region as part of Australia' s natural heritage and subject to Federal protection so as to immediately halt the gross vandalism being committed on a rare and diminishing national asset. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognising that this country is becoming one of the most indebted in the world, with liabilities per head in excess of Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Poland and Brazil; (b) conscious of the fact that we are now spending more on public debt interest than we do on education, and almost as much as we do on defence; (c) being aware of the manner in which our public debt interest has grown from $887m or 4.9 per cent of budget outlays in the budget year 1974-75 to a staggering $5,601m or 8.8 per cent of outlays in 1984-85, and (d) taking into account the fact that if any of our major exports collapse the Australian economy will be liable to a most serious economic collapse; (e) calls on the Hawke Socialist Government to recognise the extreme danger of the situation and take immediate action to reduce government borrowings. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Treasurer's hostile and unsympathetic statement that small business should 'stop begging, and it's time it stopped believing it was a race apart'; (b) notes that small business employees 60 per cent of the private sector work force, and is the greatest job creator in Australia; (c) notes that small business provides real and lasting jobs, not the Labor- sponsored type of artificial, unproductive Community Employment Program jobs and increased public service jobs that are paid for by the taxpayers of Australia; and (d) condemns the Labor Government's support for ACTU redundancy and superannuation schemes that will render thousands of small businesses unviable and cost many thousands of workers their jobs. Notices of Motion Notices of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with grave concern the failure of the Soviet Union and the United States to pursue negotiations to control and reduce the nuclear arms race, and in doing so- (a) deplores the actions of the Soviet Union, which: (i) continues to deploy SS-20 nuclear missiles targeted on the people of Europe , (ii) refuses to proceed with unconditional negotiations on intermediate nuclear forces in Europe, and (iii) continues to develop new nuclear missiles; (b) deplores the actions of an ally of Australia, the Reagan Administration, which: (i) rejects the concept of an equitable and mutually verifiable nuclear freeze; continues to threaten the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 by proceeding with the Strategic Defence Initiative to create a space-based ballistic missile defence, (ii) is proceeding with plans to build another 29,000 nuclear warheads in the next decade, many of which will be first-strike, nuclear war-fighting weapons; and (c) calls on the Government to transmit to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union the Senate's opinion that there will be no progress towards arms control or disarmament so long as their present policy of escalating the construction of nuclear weapons continues. 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. Royal Military College of Australia-annual report 1983-Pursuant to Section 147 of the Defence Act 1903. 2. Inquiry into Superannuation Fund Investment Trust Acceptance of Gifts- document. Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the document made in the House of Representatives on 24 August 1984. 3. Tenth and Final Report on the Operation of the Special Employment-Related Programs Act 1982-Statement by the Leader of the Government, Senator the Honourable J. N. Button. 4. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statements on Expenditure for May, June, and July 1984. 5. The Albany Inquiry-report and recommendations by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal into the commercial viability of commercial television station GSW-9 southern Agricultural Western Australia-Pursuant to sub-section 25 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 6. Satellite Program Services-Report Volume 1 and 2 by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on its inquiry into the regulation of the use of satellite program services by broadcasters-together with a summary relating to the report- Pursuant to sub-section 25B (4) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. 7. Burdekin Falls Dam-documents relating to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for the Burdekin Falls Dam 1983-84-Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978. 8. Documents relating to the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the documents, made in the House of Representatives on Tuesday 4 September, 1984. The PRESIDENT —The papers will be debated after questions and any matter of public importance. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As foreshadowed in the statement I tabled on 21 August 1984 in relation to the report of Mr I. D. Temby, QC, as Special Prosecutor in regard to the Age materials, it is necessary to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to enable Mr Justice Stewart, as Royal Commissioner, to investigate these materials and also to enable them to be handed to the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints for action by him. It is the Government's view, which accords with the recommendations of Mr Temby, QC, as Special Prosecutor, that, at this stage, any inquiry of a royal commission character in relation to the Age material should be carried out by the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. Under the Bill now before the Senate either commissioner, before making use of the materials, must be satisfied that the document in question is an authentic record and is appropriate to be dealt with by him. Only if so satisfied, may the commissioner make use of a document for his inquiry. In the view of the Government the question of authenticity is an essential threshold consideration. In reaching its decision to proceed with this legislation, the Government has taken into account the fact that the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge was not able to determine that the materials relating to the conduct of a Federal judge were authentic or genuine except to the extent that participants in conversations made limited acknowledgments. Against this, some of the materials are directly relevant to Mr Justice Stewart's inquiry into the Terrence Clark drug trafficking group. As Royal Commissioner acting under royal commission powers given by both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments and with his unique experience in investigations and special background knowledge, Mr Justice Stewart is probably better equipped than any other inquiry body to establish the authenticity and sources of the material. He will also be able to investigate generally the matters disclosed therein relevant to his inquiries. His Honour has indicated that he expects to complete this inquiry expeditiously . On its completion he will resume his Nugan Hand inquiries and an extension of his time for reporting in that regard may become necessary. At the same time Mr Justice Stewart will be Chairman of the three-member National Crime Authority which has recently commenced operation. The Australian community is greatly indebted to the effective and energetic manner in which Mr Justice Stewart carries out his arduous duties. It is appropriate to provide for reference to the New South Wales Commissioner because, as Mr Temby points out, State offences may be involved. The Bill also removes doubt as to the lawfulness of a person who reasonably suspects that material in his possession may be evidence of an illegal interception passing that information to law enforcement agencies which may use it for the purpose of prosecuting that offence. Mr President, as I made clear in my statement of 21 August 1984, the Government sees this legislation as the essential and appropriate response at this stage to the matters raised in Mr Temby's report and in relation to the Age materials generally. The legislation will enable the appropriate tribunal to use the materials provided their authenticity is first established. It will thus ensure that the reputations and livelihood of individual citizens will not be placed in jeopardy by unauthenticated material of possible worthless evidentiary significance but, if this material is authenticated, the legislation enables proper use to be made of it. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 proposes amendments on various subjects to a number of Acts dealing with defence matters. Many of the amendments made by the Bill are of a minor or drafting nature. Details of these amendments will be found in the explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable Senators. There are, however, more important amendments which fall into six groups. These are: The establishment of an independent pay fixing authority for the Defence Force. A change to the rules for cummutation of pension under the Services' retirement benefits scheme, in connection with the new taxing rules for lump sum payments. Abolition of the annual training obligations of members of the Emergency forces . A change to the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. Abolition of the requirement for collectors of military insignia to have official permits. Extensive amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. I will describe these particular amendments briefly. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal This is a proposal which the Australian Labor Party put in its election platform and which it has had in its Party platform for a number of years. It will supersede the existing arrangements for defence pay fixing which were established in 1979 as a result of serious problems which had arisen in Defence Force pay fixing. At that time pay fixing was dependent on the making of regulations and this resulted in excessive delays. The then Government chose not to proceed to establish a pay fixing tribunal for the Defence Force, although an amendment was moved by the Labor Party in the House of Representatives calling for such a course to be adopted whereby the committee of reference, which was already in existence, would become a tribunal which would determine the salaries and conditions of members of the Defence Force. Those salaries and conditions would have the same force as determinations of other pay fixing authorities. This Bill brings into operation those proposals and will eliminate once and for all the practice which has unfortunately been inherent in pay fixing for the Defence Force, whereby references to the committee by Ministers have not been made regularly. In many cases there have been serious delays in the hearing of Defence Force salary-related matters, with the result that, when recommended, rises have been substantial and have caused serious problems within the Defence vote. In turn, this has caused delays and has created hardship to members of the Defence Force and their families. The Australian Labor Party platform includes a commitment to the fixing of Defence Force pay and conditions on a similar basis to the arrangements applicable to the Public Service. As honourable senators will be aware, the pay fixing arrangements for the Public Service consist of two arms. One arm is the Public Service Board. The Board is empowered to determine terms and conditions of employment under section 82D the Public Service Act. The Minister for Defence is similarly empowered to determine financial conditions of service for members of the Defence Force under section 58B of the Defence Act. The other arm for the Public Service is the independent Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This Bill sets up a similar independent body for the Defence Force. It is to be called the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. The Tribunal is to consist of a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and two other persons-one a person experienced in industrial relations and the other a person who is a former member of the Defence Force. The Bill provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to determine salaries and salary-related allowances for the defence Force, and requires the Tribunal to review these matters at least every two years. The Tribunal will also have jurisdiction to determine other financial conditions but only if the particular matter is referred to it. The Bill also establishes the office of Defence Force Advocate. The advocate will have the function of preparing matters for reference to the Tribunal by the Chief of the Defence Force and of preparing submissions to the Tribunal on behalf of the Defence Force. The Advocate will also represent the Defence Force in any proceedings before the Tribunal. This arrangement recognises the fact that the Defence Force has no industrial organisation. Commutation of Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Pension Under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, an eligible member of the Defence Force can elect on retirement to take a lump sum of up to four years' entitlement to retirement pay. Following such an election, the member's retirement pay entitlement is reduced in accordance with the formula set out in the Act. This aspect of the scheme recognises the disabilities of employment in the Defence Force and helps in the resettlement of members into civilian life after lengthy service. The application of the new taxing provisions on lump sum benefits will gradually reduce the net value of commutation. The Bill accordingly amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act to increase gradually the amount of pension that may be commuted. The amount that may be commuted is to be increased by annual stages over the next 20 years from four to five years' retirement pay. In general terms, this formula will preserve the net value of commutation after tax. However, the increase in the amount that may be commuted will mean an appropriate consequential reduction in the level of retirement pay received in the form of pension. This reduction will initially be very small but even in the long term it will not be more than 6 per cent of the current pension entitlements. Further amendments proposed to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 concern existing transitional provisions dealing with the rights of contributors under the previous scheme who continued to be contributors under the present scheme. The position briefly is that, according to legal advice, these provisions do not operate as intended with the result that certain retirees are receiving less than the benefits intended. The purpose of the amendments is to restore the provisions to their originally intended operation. Emergency Forces Each arm of the Defence Force has an Emergency Force which may be called upon to serve in situations short of a proclaimed defence emergency. These forces are intended to be a supplement to the permanent forces. Each Emergency Force consists of members who were formerly members of the permanent forces. Each member is currently liable to render two weeks service annually. The previous Government decided, on the advice of the Chiefs of Staff, that there was no need to require members of the Emergency Forces to undergo annual training because they joined from the permanent forces as fully trained members. The only exception would be where it became necessary for a member to be re-trained on new or improved equipment or for a similar reason. The present Government has endorsed that decision and the Bill amends the Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act and the Air Force Act to remove the general obligation for members of the Emergency Forces to undergo annual training. Permits to collect military insignia In order that a person may legally collect Defence Force uniforms, emblems, badges, et cetera, written authority from the Minister for Defence or an authorised person is necessary in accordance with section 83 of the Defence Act. It is an offence to have military uniforms and insignia in one's possession without authority. In practice, military uniforms and insignia are freely available for purchase from disposal stores and other military equipment stores. It is reasonable to assume that many collectors would not be aware of the requirement to obtain written authority. In practical terms, it is impossible to police adequately the requirement to have written authority; nor is there any reason to inhibit the interest in defence matters which is reflected in the collection of military insignia et cetera. The Bill accordingly removes the requirement to have written authority for the possession of such items. The manufacture, sale, supply and use of military uniforms and insignia will continue to be subject to the requirement to have written authority. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 was passed by Parliament with the approval of all parties. It was a long overdue reform of the law governing the discipline of the Defence Force. It is hoped to bring the Act generally into force early in 1985. The Labor Party did not oppose the Bill, although it had some reservations about certain matters. The Labor Party took this view because of the extremely long development time for the Bill and because of the importance that the Labor Party attached to getting the Bill into force and replacing the existing archaic and complex law on the subject. It was the belief of the Labor Party that a set of laws which is totally new, whose application has not been tried or tested and which may be found to have deficiencies, should be re-examined after a reasonable period of operation. The Government is reinforced in that view by the number of amendments which it has been found necessary to make even before the Act has come into general operation . The Bill accordingly amends the Act to require the Minister for Defence to appoint a board to review the Act after its first three years of operation and report to the Minister, who will table the report in the parliament. It is essential for such a review that adequate statistics and other details be kept of trials and proceedings under the Act. It is desirable, in any case, that such statistics be kept and published on an annual basis. The Bill accordingly amends the Act to require the Judge Advocate General to report annually to the Minister on the operation of the Act and for the Minister to table the report in Parliament. Other amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act made by the Bill are of four types. They are as follows: Inclusion of provisions dealing with the investigation of offences, based on relevant provisions of the Criminal Investigation Bill 1981. Inclusion of provisions which were originally intended to be provided for by subordinate legislation. Correction of certain omissions and inclusions of new matter. Correction of defects and drafting amendments. These amendments are adequately explained in the explanatory memorandum. As passed, the Defence Force Discipline Act contemplated that the investigation of offences would be governed by the Criminal Investigation Bill then before Parliament. However, that Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament in February 1983. It remains the Government's intention to introduce a Criminal Investigation Bill as soon as possible. However, it is necessary to include appropriate provisions in the Defence Force Discipline Act so that it may be brought into operation. The terms in which these provisions are included in the Discipline Act should not be regarded as representing the Government's final view on the subject and if the Criminal Investigation Bill, when passed by Parliament, differs in any important respect from the provisions in the Discipline Act, it is the Government's intention that appropriate amendments be made to the Discipline Act. Chief of the Defence Force A significant amendment is the change to the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff. This title does not accurately describe the position, because the holder of the office heads the Defence Force, not just a staff. The Government considers that the title Chief of the Defence Force more clearly expresses the intended role, and the Bill makes the necessary substitution in the Defence Act and other Acts. Financial Impact Statement With regard to the introduction of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the only additional cost will be the fees related to the cost of the Defence Force Advocate, which are estimated to be $60,000 annually. The costs of the Tribunal itself will be equivalent to those of the existing Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay, which the Tribunal replaces. With regard to the new commutation rules, the net cost to the Commonwealth for the present financial year is estimated to be $150,000, increasing steadily in succeeding years until the new maximum rate of commutation is reached in the year 2003. The costs arising from the amendment of the transitional provisions of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 ($200,000 for the first year and $150,000 annually thereafter) are not additional expenditure but offset current unintended savings arising from the present defects in the legislation. With regard to the abolition of annual training obligations for members of the Emergency Forces, the saving to the Commonwealth for the present financial year is estimated to be $175,000. The saving in future years will be directly related to the number of members in the Emergency Forces. Other amendments made by the Bill will not have any measurable financial impact. I commend the Bill to the Senate. In doing so, I draw the attention of Honourable Senators to the need for early passage of the Bill so that the amendments of the DFRDB Act relating to the increased amount of pay that may be commuted will come into force as soon as possible. This is an important element of the DFRDB scheme which is designed to facilitate the resettlement of members of the Defence Force on leaving the Force . Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to establish procedures for assessing and, where appropriate, authorising biological control programs in Australia. Complementary legislation will be passed by the State and Northern Territory Parliaments to establish a uniform and equitable system, applying throughout Australia, which will ensure that biological control programs that have been identified as being in the public interest can proceed in accordance with law and without interruption by litigation. The need for the Bill was recognised in June 1983, when an injunction was obtained which prevented the release of insects to control Echium, a plant commonly known as Paterson's Curse or Salvation Jane. Echium has long been perceived as a noxious weed in Southern-Eastern Australia and is commonly declared as such. Its control by biological means was considered both desirable and possible by the agencies which have responsibility for these matters, and whose integrity and expertise had never before been questioned. Two beekeepers and two graziers who believed the plant had beneficial qualities , obtained the injunction on the grounds of the common law of private nuisance, which is concerned more with the rights of the individual than the question of public interest. It became clear that there were two related problems. First, there was no provision in existing legislation which authorised the release of control agents , such as insects or rusts, into the environment. Second, it was clear that there was no equitable means of resolving a conflict of interest concerning biological control programs with a view to establishing public benefit. In developing the legislation to resolve the legal status of biological control, it has been necessary to address both of these problems. Before I advert to specific features of the Bill, I would like to make a few general points about biological control and the purpose of the Bill. Biological control has had a long and honourable history in Australia. In addition to its well known successes in controlling rabbits and prickly pear, biological control has also helped to account for numerous agricultural pests, for environmentally unacceptable plants such as water weeds and for vectors of disease such as mosquitos. The Bill will not affect the existing basic scientific, technical or safety procedures and standards applying to biological control. Decisions concerning proposed biological control programs will continue to observe these fully. The Bill does not in any way reduce the effect of relevant Acts, which include the Quarantine Act, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act. The Bill is not directed against any particular weed or pest, but rather provides the means of deciding whether or not the control of individual weeds or pests would be in the public interest. There is no requirement for all proposed biological control programs to be submitted for consideration in terms of the Bill. The great majority are not a potential source of controversy and agencies may prefer to proceed independently. However, where an agency wishes to pursue an independent course of action it will remain subject to existing legislation, standards and procedures and, of course, subject to litigation on a common law basis. This Bill will be complemented by legislation in the States and the Northern Territory. The targets of biological control and the agents which control the targets are not familiar with political boundaries. As the majority of biological control programs are directed at agricultural pests or weeds, the Bill provides that the Australian Agricultural Council will have primary responsibility for taking the actions and making the decisions referred to in the Bill. Where appropriate, the Council will seek the advice and assistance of relevant bodies, such as the Australian Forestry Council and the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers. The proposed role of the Australian Agricultural Council is appropriate in that it represents all States, is concerned with agriculture and is the vehicle by which most biological control proposals are presently considered. In order to create a legal entity for the purposes of the Act, there is provision for the establishment of a Biological Control Authority in the A.C.T. Complementary legislation will establish similar Authorities in the States and the Northern Territory. At the first meeting of the AAC each year the Commonwealth Minister in consultation with State Ministers shall designate the Commonwealth Minister, or one of the State Ministers as the Australia-wide Biological Control Authority. The provisions of the Bill may be broken down into a few essential elements. First, public opinion concerning a proposed biological activity will be widely canvassed. Second, depending on the nature of any public comment, an inquiry may be held. Finally, based on the information available, including the report of a public inquiry in the event of one being held, the program may be declared in terms of the Act and biological control agents may then be released. A declared program will protect those authorised to conduct the program from legal action for damages other than in specified circumstances, and will preclude the opportunity to halt the program by means of a common law injunction. However, as with other areas of Government decision making, judgments relating to particular biological control programs could result in gains and losses to various groups in the community. Losses could be experienced by the honey industry for instance , if a decision were made to proceed with a control program against Echium. While it is desirable that the greater public benefit take precedence, it is also necessary to recognise the concerns of those adversely affected. Thus the Bill allows for fair and equitable decision making processes which provide the opportunity for the question of assistance to those claiming to be adversely affected to be addressed. Turning to the procedural aspects, the Bill obliges all proposed targets to be advertised but there is a discretion as to whether the proposed agents should be advertised. The target is a weed or a pest and there is no difficulty for a lay member of the public to express a view as to whether they perceive the target to be undesirable or beneficial. Once the target is declared, the basis on which an agent, such as an insect capable of controlling the target, is selected is essentially technical, is subject to the requirements of the Quarantine Act and is less amenable to judgment by lay persons. Where the agent has been deemed safe in terms of the Quarantine Act there are grounds for assuming that a public inquiry is unnecessary. Nevertheless an inquiry as to the desirability of a proposed agent still remains an option under this Bill. The Bill provides that a target must have been declared as such before agents to control that target can be declared. However the Bill also allows the nomination and resolution of proposed targets and their respective agents, including public hearings, to proceed simultaneously. The basis of, and options for, public inquiry are essentially the same for target and agent proposals. The Biological Control Authority, after considering the information available and consulting Council, may order an inquiry if it considers persons or the environment will be adversely affected. The Bill provides for different forms of inquiry, which reflects the fact that biological control may have different social, economic or environmental consequences. Declaration of a target or agent is the final step in the process of consultation and public decision making for which this Bill provides. Declaration is made where the Authority is satisfied that control of a target would be for the public benefit. Once a target and the relevant agent or agents have been declared, the agents may be released subject to any conditions specified. As I have already indicated, the Bill provides that no legal proceedings shall be instituted where the release of agents is in accordance with the Act. However , where the release of agents has damaging effects on organisms other than the target organism, legal action can be taken to recover damages if these were not taken into account when making a decision to authorise the release of the agent, or if the damages could reasonably have been foreseen at the time the agent was released. In clearly specified emergency conditions, the Bill provides that the Authority may declare target or agent organisms as such without first observing the requirements concerning public comment or inquiry which I have outlined. Such emergencies are rare but, as the recent outbreak of lucerne aphid demonstrated, the relevant agencies need to be able to respond quickly to prevent what would otherwise involve considerable economic loss and disruption. There are a number of existing biological control programs in Australia and these will be declared in terms of the Bill. This simply reflects the fact that the existence of a successful biological control program is a fact of life. In the absence of any previous legal challenge it must be assumed that they are sanctioned by the public. Nevertheless, the Bill provides that any developments in existing programs, such as the introduction of a new sort of biological control agent, may be subject to its provisions. There are several provisions in the Bill which enable the Commonwealth Legislation and the complementary State and Northern Territory legislation to operate efficiently. These are directed at ensuring that where all the provisions of the Commonwealth Act have been fulfilled, a declaration in terms of that Act applies in all the States and the Northern Territory. This avoids having to duplicate applications, advertisements and inquiries. It is not possible to quantify the financial impact of the Bill accurately. Effective biological control is accepted as a highly cost-effective means of regulating weeds and pests and has the capacity to save millions of dollars for rural industries. Direct costs are associated with the cost of advertisement and public inquiries, but the frequency and nature of these costs will largely be determined by events that arise on an irregular basis. If past experience is to be used as a guide, biological control very rarely causes controversy and it could be expected that public inquiries would therefore also be rare. However, provision for public comment may lead to increased awareness of biological control programs and hence to more inquiries. The Bill institutes a number of additional administrative requirements. These may involve indirect costs to various existing committees concerned with biological control. Direct costs to the Commonwealth for salaries and administration will be less than $100,000 per annum. There has been considerable pressure, from the rural sector in particular, to urgently resolve the legal status of biological control. While most of this concern relates to the biological control of Echium, the legislation has been developed to equitably resolve conflict concerning any biological control program on the basis of public benefit. I draw the attention of Honourable Senators to recent events in Victoria. Biological control of blackberry in that State, in New South Wales and in Tasmania has long been a subject of controversy but there was no means of resolving that controversy. In the end, someone, possibly illegally, introduced a rust capable of controlling blackberry. This action may not only have contravened the Quarantine Act, but also was done without the necessary safeguards to protect other plant species. This Bill does not seek to meddle with existing scientific or quarantine measures, or to impose priorities. It does provide what should be a publicly acceptable and equitable means of determining whether a proposed biological control program is in the public interest. Once public benefit is established, then a program can proceed in the full knowledge that it will benefit the community without imposing unacceptable consequences on the economy or the environment. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.19) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave, Mr President, to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- These nine Bills will give effect to the proposal announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech to impose sales tax on Australian alcoholic grape wines and ciders and to adjust the level of sales tax on non-grape wines and imported grape wines and ciders. The Bills will impose tax on these beverages at the new rate of 10 per cent. These Bills do not change any of the exemptions from sales tax, nor any of the classifications of goods into particular tax rates. These matters are covered by the schedules to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Some deletions of existing exemptions, as well as changes in the sales tax classification of goods, to give effect to budget announcements are, however, proposed by the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1984 that I will introduce shortly. That Bill will specify the alcoholic grape wines, non-grape wines and ciders to be subject to the new 10 per cent rate of tax to be imposed by this Bill. As the new rate of sales tax is to be imposed from 8 p.m. on Budget night, 21 August 1984, these Bills, when enacted, will take effect at that time. The sales tax is basically a tax on wholesale sales and, in the ordinary case of sales by a wholesaler to a retailer, the new rate of tax will accordingly apply to sales made at or after 8 p.m. on Budget night. As usual, an explanatory memorandum covering technical aspects of these Bills and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill and providing a detailed statement of the effect of these measures has been circulated to honourable senators. The result of the imposition of the new 10 per cent sales tax rate and other changes announced in the Budget will be a net increase in revenue estimated at some $44m in 1984-85 and $56m in a full year. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to alter the sales tax classification of certain goods, principally beer, wine, cider and similar alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages, as announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech. The Bill will also restore an exemption from sales tax, removed in 1983, for film used in the production of commercial motion picture films. Third, the Bill will eliminate avenues for avoidance of sales tax through the export and re-import of goods as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 7 May this year. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, which this Bill amends, classifies particular goods as exempt from sales tax, specifies the circumstances of the exemption and places other goods in one or other of the tax rate categories. Goods not specifically dealt with by the Act are taxable at the general rate of 20 per cent. I turn now to discuss in more detail the changes proposed by this Bill. Under the present law, Australian beer is exempt from sales tax, but beer containing more than 1.15 per cent alcohol, that is, full strength and low alcohol beer, is subject to excise. With the introduction of very low alcohol beers, that is, beer containing not more than 1.15 per cent alcohol, an undesirable situation has arisen. Presently, the higher alcohol beers are excisable and brewed soft drinks are taxable at the general rate of 20 per cent; but very low alcohol beers are free from both excise and sales tax. The Government believes that there is no basis for this discrimination in the case of very low alcohol beers and, accordingly, they are now to be subject to tax at the same rate as brewed soft drinks. This change will operate from 8 p.m. on 21 August 1984. The sales tax treatment of very low alcohol imported beers, which are presently taxable at the general rate, will remain the same. Mr President, I have already mentioned in my comments on the Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills, that the Government has decided to impose sales tax on Australian alcoholic grape wine and cider and to adjust the level of sales tax on non-grape wines and on imported grape wines and ciders. Under amendments proposed by those Bills, sales tax will be imposed on such beverages at the new rate of 10 per cent. The Government's decision follows a review of the overall sales tax and Customs duty treatment of wine and cider. Apart from Australian wine and cider, virtually the whole range of alcoholic beverages bears some kind of Federal tax. The Government believes that it is inappropriate to maintain any exception. At present, Australian grape wine and ciders are exempt from sales tax. Imported grape wines and ciders, as well as all non-grape wines, however, are taxable at the general rate of 20 per cent. The Bill will classify in a new Sixth Schedule to the Act, those wines and ciders that are to be subject to the new 10 per cent rate of tax. Specifically, cider, mead, perry, sake and grape wine, as well as other similar fermented alcoholic beverages, such as fruit wine, vegetable wine and wine made from other food sources, will be covered by the new Sixth Schedule. However, alcoholic beverages containing not more than 1.15 per cent alcohol, generally regarded as non-alcoholic, and those that consist of, or contain, beer, spirits (other than fortifying spirits), liqueurs of spirituous liquors will be excluded. In the case of imported grape wine, which is presently subject to sales tax at the general rate of 20 per cent, the effect of the change proposed by the Bill will be to reduce the rate of sales tax to 10 per cent. The Government has decided, however, to retain the protection presently accorded to locally produced wine. Accordingly, an additional ad valorem customs duty will be imposed on imported alcoholic grape wines at a rate equivalent to a 10 per cent sales tax. My colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), will shortly be introducing the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 for this purpose. Additionally, the Bill will alter the sales tax treatment of Australian and imported non-alcoholic, non-grape wines. These wines, which are presently taxable at 20 per cent, will now be exempt from tax. This change too will operate from 8 p.m. on 21 August 1984. I mention that Australian non-alcoholic grape wine and cider will remain exempt from sales tax. A deficiency in the law, which has led to a sales tax avoidance practice involving the exportation and importation or re-importation of certain goods, will also be countered by measures in this Bill. The Government's clearly enunciated policy is to smash the tax avoidance industry and that policy applies equally to the sales tax avoidance industry. This Bill will alter the exemption from sales tax which is presently available for certain goods which, upon importation, qualify for duty free admission by virtue of provisions in the Customs Tariff. As the law is presently framed, a wide range of usually taxable goods, both imported and of Australian manufacture, could be obtained tax free by being exported and subsequently imported or re-imported, other than as passengers' personal effects. Apart from motor vehicles, there was little or no specific restriction on the wide range, value and quantity of goods which might be involved. The loop hole was therefore being used to avoid tax, particularly on goods subject to high rates of tax, otherwise payable on taxable goods, including furs, jewellery, boats and electronic equipment. By this Bill the intended operation of the law, which is to exempt from sales tax at the time of importation or re-importation two particular classes of goods , will be restored. The first class comprises Australian manufactured goods which would have been exempt if they had gone into use or consumption in Australia but, because they are first exported and then imported back into Australia, become taxable by reason of being imported goods. The second class comprises goods in respect of which sales tax has already been paid and has not been refunded. The changes will prevent the loss of many millions of dollars of potential revenue. This particular measure will be made effective in relation to importations and re-importations of goods occurring after 7 May 1984, which was the date on which the Treasurer announced that the law would be amended in this way. The final measure proposed by this Bill is to provide an exemption from sales tax for certain cinematograph film for use in the production of commercial motion picture films. While most cinematograph film used in the production of motion picture films can qualify for exemption as an aid to manufacture, in some situations for technical reasons only, certain classes of film can fall outside the scope of the present exemption. This Government has accepted claims by the motion picture industry that this is anomalous when compared with the 'aids to manufacture' exemption available to other classes of manufacturers. The Bill will correct this anomaly. The alteration will apply on and after 22 August 1984 . As I mentioned in my speech on the Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills, an explanatory memorandum covering technical aspects of those Bills and this Bill is being made available to honourable senators. This provides greater detail on the goods affected by these measures. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 which is now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982 which are to operate on and from 8 p.m. on 21 August 1984. The changes contained in the Bill are complementary measures to changes in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act which are part of the Government's Budget measures. The sales tax amendments impose sales tax on locally produced and imported alcoholic wine and cider and on beers with an alcoholic strength of not more than 1.15 per cent by volume. The requirements under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade necessitate that internal taxes be applied equally to imported and like domestic products. The sales tax legislation carries this out. Equalization of the sales tax on the imported and local products does, however, alter the levels of assistance accorded the locally produced goods. For this reason it is necessary to amend the relevant rates in the Customs Tariff. In each instance the sales tax that applied to the imported goods was 20 per cent, in regard to beer and cider the full 20 per cent rate has been converted into an equivalent customs duty, however, for grape wine Australia has entered into commitments under the GATT not to increase the Customs duty above certain specified bound levels. Negotiations have been taking place with the principal countries supplying wine to the Australian market with a view to accommodating the sales tax within the level of the binding on the Customs duty. With these considerations in mind, the Government has decided to replace the present sales tax on imported wine by a customs duty equivalent to a sales tax of 10 per cent, this action is seen as being fully consistent with Australia's obligations under the GATT. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Constitution Alteration (Terms of Senators) Bill 1984 Constitution Alteration (Interchange of Powers) Bill 1984 Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, after consideration of Government Business Notice of Motion No. 2, intervening business be postponed until after consideration of General Business Notice of Motion No. 115 relating to the appointment of a Senate Select Committee and Notice of Motion No. 116 relating to the appointment of a Commission. Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles 1984, formulated under sub -section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —The proposal before the Senate to disallow the regulations refers to a set of principles which are proposed to be placed in regulations, and have been so placed by the Minister for Health (Mr Blewett). The idea is to set certain limits in relation to the profit that can be made by private geriatric hospitals. Senator Baume in his remarks referred to a recent case before Mr Justice Woodward, and I think it is important to look at that case because it tends to spell out in fairly clear detail the problem with which we are dealing. Essentially, the action was taken by the Alexandra private nursing home asking the Federal Court to say that the practices followed by the Department of Health in fixing the nursing home fees were contrary to the Act. Those principles have been used for quite some time. Indeed, in the judgment handed down by Mr Justice Woodward he refers to the fact that in 1972, amongst other things, a provision for the approval of nursing homes and the fixing of the fees they would be permitted to charge was inserted in the National Health Act. In other words, when one sought approval for a nursing home one had to undertake certain obligations in relation to the setting of fees. Those principles were informal. They were put forward as working principles within the Department upon which private nursing homes could rely in the establishment of their fee structures. Of course, it is well to remember that private nursing homes, and indeed all nursing homes in Australia, are subsidised to a very large extent from Consolidated Revenue. It is an important area of community concern. I believe that every senator in this place, and certainly every member in the other place, would have received representations from time to time from senior citizens who find themselves unable to secure accommodation in nursing homes or, if not from them, from their children who find that they are unable to place their parents in the type of care they want for them. Hence the establishment of private nursing homes, which currently provide about 35 to 40 per cent of beds in this area, is an extremely important issue for the community. If nursing homes are to be established-certainly the Government through Consolidated Revenue and State governments through their own revenue do not seem to be able to keep pace with the demand that exists-it is necessary for there to be an economic climate which makes it an attractive proposition for people in the private sector to establish such homes. In doing so they provide the additional beds which are demanded by the community. The proposition put by the Alexandra private nursing home to the court was that the current way the fees are structured left it with quite negligible profit margins. I quote from the judge's summing up: I agree that it- in other words, viability in relation to profit margins- is from the applicant's point of view, quite unfair that it should have to accept a profit in 1984 that is little different from that which it was receiving in 1972. Therein lies the difficulty. While it is accepted, and I think it has to be accepted in terms of the judge's ruling, that what the Department is doing is perfectly legal, on the judge's summing up the situation in relation to the profit margins one could expect seems to be unfair. The judge went on: In the light of this evidence, there can be little doubt that the Department is taking a hard line with the proprietors of established nursing homes. Hence I think it ought to be accepted that a situation exists which requires redress. That situation applies quite specifically to existing nursing homes because, as the judge pointed out: A new nursing home, by way of contrast, would have its fees fixed to include a profit element based on the notional fair rent of the premises, to be determined by the Department after valuation together with a 12.5 per cent allowance for other assets. Such a nursing home would, of course, be much better off than the applicant- that is, than the existing nursing home- because the valuation would have to be at current prices. But its profits would in its turn be eroded with the passage of time, and with inflation, in the same way as the applicant's. Of course, it is not a proposition which is all one-sided. On the other side we must be concerned about the costs in nursing homes. Whether the cost is paid from people's own pockets or paid from consolidated revenue it is still a cost. I think that it is important for the Government to seek to contain those costs. Most of the cases in this area were conducted at a time when the current Government was not in power. Indeed, they were conducted against the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) when he was the Minister for Health. Of course , the previous Government also used these principles which the Minister now is seeking to put into regulations. The previous Government used these very same principles as a means of informing the nursing homes as to how they were to set their fees. We are not talking about a new situation or one that has come in with this Government, it is a continuing situation. That continuing situation can be shown by reference to the court case because at the time the court case was conducted the regulation was not in place. We are not talking about something that the current Government has thought up; we are talking about a continuing policy. I think it is very important to bear that in mind. I do not think that the Senate or, indeed, the Government can allow the current situation to continue. Therefore, we are then confronted with the question of what is the best course of action. I mention here a number of problems on which I would certainly like some information when the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) replies on the disallowance motion. I mention first of all the situation in relation to the sale of nursing homes which I think is extremely important. What information does the Government have on the sale of such homes, particularly in the last 12 months to 18 months? What is the current situation? Are people able to sell nursing homes if they wish to do so? If one looks at the evidence presented by the applicant in this court case it presents a pretty clear picture of the inability of many nursing home owners to put the nursing home on the open market with the expectation of a fair and reasonable return for investment. Again I want to emphasise that we are not seeking to make it more difficult for people to find beds in nursing homes but rather to make sure that nursing homes are being built and operated to take up that area of need which the Government is not able to fulfil, an area it has not been able to fulfil for quite a considerable time. We need the private sector nursing homes because of the demand. Therefore, if we are to have a private sector in the nursing home area there has to be a return for investors. I think that that is all the people who operate these homes are looking for. I think the national association is making a very clear and reasonable case for a reasonable return. I am not at all sure that that is always the case put by other people who make representations in this area. Certainly the national association has made a reasonable and moderate case for a reasonable profit return. Whether nursing homes are able to be sold, and have been able to be sold in the recent past, is an important element and certainly will weigh with us in determining how we will vote on the disallowance motion. Senator Peter Baume —They would have to be homes established for some time in order to be consistent with the argument you have been advancing. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I certainly take up the point which Senator Baume raises by interjection. These would have to be homes which have been operating for some time. This is where the real market problem is arising. It is a problem arising out of unrealistic returns on previous assets. If a person is going to make a pretty heavy investment-as it would be to buy a home of 50 to 100 beds-then that person would certainly be looking at a reasonable market return on that asset. Again, we are looking not only at this problem, but also the problem of leases. I would certainly be interested in ascertaining what range of goodwill is available in those types of sales at the moment. What are the current rates that people are able to get per bed on goodwill? Part of the argument of the people in this situation is that they cannot get that return. I think it is important, certainly for my Party, to be able to understand what type of return people are currently able to get on goodwill. Also of importance is what the Government intends to do in this particular area . I understand that it has established an inquiry and that this inquiry is due to report some time in the very near future. However, I think that is no longer acceptable. We will be supporting the disallowance motion unless we can get an undertaking from the Government before this Parliament rises-in other words, we do not have, on all the current indications, all that much longer to sit-of what will be the situation with profit margins. What will be the decision? Will the Government give an undertaking to this Senate that those announcements will be made before the Parliament rises? If one looks at the judgment of Mr Justice Woodward one would have to say that that unfair situation can no longer continue and that it is no longer possible to have that situation in existence. Hence, the Australian Democrats will require the Government to give an undertaking to this chamber that its determination and the changes made to these principles will be made public. I do not expect the Government to be able to give such a guarantee but hopefully this issue will be able to be enacted before we rise. The reason why the Government cannot give a guarantee is that it does not have total control over the legislative program that operates in the Parliament. Insofar as it is possible, we hope that the issue can be legislated for before we rise. If that is not possible, I think the Government, in making its announcement, will be able to give a starting date for the new procedures. We do not expect that the Government will be able to go to the total extent that the Private Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria might like. Indeed, probably most governments find themselves unable to implement every proposition that is put forward. The Government has to acknowledge that the situation is unfair and that the high level of cost recoveries and the profit levels are not attractive to people coming into the industry and that changes must be implemented. When Senator Baume made his speech he stated: The case for disallowance is made not on the basis of assertions by politicians alone and not just because the Opposition has a view on these nursing home guidelines . . . It is important to emphasise the point that if the disallowance motion were carried the Democrats would have a concern about the increased litigation which, undoubtedly, would arise. That litigation would be costly not only to the hospitals involved but also the Government and Consolidated Revenue in terms of the defence the Government would have to offer. The Government would be required to tie up considerable resources in defending those particular cases. We feel that that is an argument on the other side. it gives us a reason to pause. If the Government is able to give an undertaking now that those changes will occur we believe that that would be preferable to launching everybody into a new round of litigation. I am quite sure that Senator Baume would not want to promote a new round of litigation. What Senator Baume is attempting to do by his disallowance motion-this is the way in which we read it-is to put pressure on the Government to come up with a decision, to come forward with a proposition and to make a move towards the position that has been put forward by the associations in the various cases that they have conducted. I believe that they have right on their side; it might not be a legal right, but they certainly have moral right on their side. It is not a situation which we would be willing to allow to continue. I wish to make clear what our position is. If the Government is unable to give an assurance to this Parliament that it will make such an undertaking to have those guidelines revised and its new profit situation announced before the Parliament rises for the coming election, we would certainly support Senator Baume's disallowance motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.42) —Let us look at the history of nursing home fees when considering this disallowance motion as it may put everything in perspective. In 1972 the Government decided to regulate nursing home fees and to allow a return of 10 per cent profit on capital investment. We all know that at that time there was not the high rate of inflation that we have seen occur in this country from 1972 onwards. We also know that the 10 per cent profit has deteriorated since that time. As I have said, we know that a 10 per cent profit on capital investment was considered quite reasonable at that time. Nursing home owners were permitted to charge fees which would give them that profit on the valuation of their nursing homes. So when one had one's nursing home valued one was able to make a 10 per cent profit by charging one's patients these fees. The National Health Act required the Director-General of the Department of Health, when determining increases in fees, to 'have regard to costs necessarily incurred'. All that sounds very clear. The owners were permitted a profit of 10 per cent on the current valuation of their nursing homes and the Director- General, when determining increases, had to have regard to costs necessarily incurred. However, the Department of Health did not follow that legislation. Indeed, it chose to ignore the Act altogether. When determining fees the Department of Health did so in accordance with the guidelines it had set up of its own accord. It has been said today that there were several court cases. On each of those occasions when the nursing homes took the Department of Health to court, the court came down in favour of the private nursing homes and against the Department of Health. But the Department of Health was not deterred; it kept on ignoring the Act and abiding by its guidelines. This matter reached the level of the High Court of Australia and again the decision came down in favour of the private nursing homes with the High Court saying that the Department was ignoring the Act. I believe that that was a very serious thing. If the people of Australia cannot rely on the departments of this Government to abide by the legislation set down; indeed, when they do not abide by it-we have court rulings saying that the Department of Health was acting in contravention of legislation which this Parliament passed-we have a very serious situation. As a result-as I said, this has happened over a period of years-the previous Minister for Health, Mr Carlton, set up a working party to review the situation. The report of that working party came out just as the last election took place. So the incoming Government had the report of the working party but chose to ignore it. Instead of taking notice of the evidence gathered by the working party it decided to change the legislation and it brought in principles that were the same as the guidelines the Department was abiding by. I believe that that was quite irresponsible of the Government. The Government decided that it did not like the Court's decision and that therefore it would change the legislation and remove the requirement that the Director-General had to have regard to costs necessarily incurred. So we have these Nursing Home Fees Determination Principles which, as Senator Baume has already said, the Opposition is moving today to disallow. Following that change, a case was brought against the Department by the Alexandra private geriatric hospital. Mr Justice Woodward, following the alteration to the legislation, was forced for the first time in any of the court decisions to find in favour of the Department. That was only because the law had been changed. I will read from Mr Justice Woodward's findings because I believe that it is very important to hear what he said. His Honour said: The Department's attitude, as explained by its chief witness, Mr Tratt, is that in the case of nursing homes established before 1973 it continues to allow a profit element based on 10% of the historic costs of land and buildings- That means that the Department says that any nursing home established before 1973 can today still have only a 10 per cent profit margin on the valuation of the nursing home in 1973. That is quite ridiculous. Mr Justice Woodward went on: and 12.5% of other assets. That is leaving out the basic valuation of the nursing home. His Honour said: If the business is sold- this is the Department's attitude- along with the premises, the same figure will be allowed-on the basis that a change of ownership should not affect a patients' fees. The Department says that if the nursing home that was established in 1973 is sold, the new owner cannot claim it as a new private nursing home and has to abide by the old profits. His Honour, still referring to the Department's attitude, continued: If it is leased, the same allowance will be made irrespective of the rent actually paid, on the basis that a change of method of occupation should not affect those fees. That is the patients' fees. We get to the situation that if the nursing home is leased and the lessee is paying far more rental than was paid previously, he still will not be able to have a profit greater than that of the previous owner. I think everybody in the community would understand that rentals have gone up since 1973. It is now 1984 and this situation is quite ridiculous. His Honour said: In the light of this evidence there can be little doubt that the Department is taking a hard line with proprietors of established nursing homes. In saying that, I believe, he was quite a master of understatement. He went on: A new nursing home, by way of contrast, would have its fees fixed to include a profit element based on the notional fair rent of the premises, to be determined by the Department after valuation-- after today's valuation, the 1984 valuation- together with a 12.5 per cent allowance for other assets. Such a nursing home would, of course, be much better off than the applicant-- the owner of the nursing home that was established before 1973- because the valuation would have to be at current prices. What justification could there possibly be for the Department allowing a nursing home set up today, at a 1984 valuation, to be so far ahead of a nursing home with a profit margin based on a 1973 valuation? It is a quite ridiculous situation. His Honour went on: But its profits would in turn be eroded with the passage of time, and with inflation . . . He pointed out that a new nursing home being set up now would have its profit margin frozen to the 1984 valuation and that in 10 or 20 years time we would find that those profits had been eroded by the passage of time and with inflation. He went on: In the meantime the contrast only serves to highlight the unfortunate position in which the applicant-- the owner of the 1973 nursing home- has been placed-through no fault of its own, unless a determination to give a good standard of nursing care can be described as a fault. The applicant's basic difficulty is that the poor level of profit it is allowed is not sufficient to cushion it against the losses sustained by its use of more staff than the Department will recognise. It is in this sense that the applicant's business is not viable or barely viable. It is certainly not making a profitable use of valuable assets. His Honour pointed out very clearly that there is a grave injustice in the present guidelines that have been set down by the Department. As I said, historically the whole thing is out of date. The Government in 1972, when inflation was virtually non-existent, made a 10 per cent profit on the valuation of that time. We find that in the intervening 12 years these older nursing homes have reached a situation where, as His Honour said, the profits have been squeezed. What were the words he used? He said: The Department seems to be squeezing the profits of private nursing homes just short of the point of causing the enterprise to fail. He said that it was hard and quite unfair. I think that the following statement is also most important. He said: . . . it is from the applicant's point of view quite unfair that it should have to accept a profit in 1984 that is little different from that which it was accepting in 1972. I do not think that we expect any other area of business to collect in 1984 the same profits as it collected in 1972. I see no reason why the Government should have changed the legislation purely because the High Court of Australia and various other levels of court have come out saying that the nursing homes are acting incorrectly and in breach of the legislation. I am delighted that the Australian Democrats are joining us in this matter, and I hope that the Government will join with us in changing those iniquitous principles. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.55) —Senator Walters's final words are rather amusing. We are asked to throw out and change some principles that she considers iniquitous. The principles and regulations codify a scheme that was introduced, as the honourable senator said, in 1972 by a conservative government. The principles were administered unchanged by conservative governments for eight of the past 12 years. I ignore the fact that Senator Walters, when referring to the period of conservative government, talked about the Department of Health being the villain, but when referring to the period of the Labor Government talked about the government being the villain. That is the sort of debating trick that we expect from Senator Walters. I remind Senator Walters that the principles were established under and administered by a government of which she was a supporter during eight of the past 12 years. It is absolute nonsense to talk about iniquitous principles as though they were something that the present Government had introduced. I had better undertake some historical analysis of the type adopted by Senator Walters to put the matter into perspective. For the benefit of people who were not here in the 1970s, particularly since 1972, it is important to realise just what happened. The fact is that the current arrangements were developed and enacted under a Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. The arrangements provided for significant increases in nursing home benefits and the introduction of controls over the number of nursing home beds that attracted benefits, the patients admitted to those beds and the maximum fees charged. From the inception of the fee control arrangements, fees were increased to reflect increases in costs, but there was no general provision for profitability levels to be increased. However, proprietors could, and did, appeal to the Minister if they considered that in their case an increase in profitability was warranted. Throughout the period during which Senator Walters and her colleagues were in government they maintained that policy. It became increasingly clear during that time, however, that the whole question of nursing profitability needed to be examined and that anomalies needed to be redressed. We all knew that; the previous Government knew that; but it was all too hard. I do not recall that Senator Walters, during all her time as a Government back bencher, breathed a word about that question and said anything about what she now considers to be iniquitous principles. The matter was examined by advisory committees and successive consultancies were let, but all that action during all that time led to nothing. The Liberal- Country Party Government did not know where to go with the nursing home profitability question. Indeed, that Government had no real policy on age care and accommodation for the aged. Senator Walters —What was the report of the working party and why did you ignore it? Senator GRIMES —We are not ignoring that report. I am coming to that aspect. I am talking about the fact that, while Senator Walters has been a senator, she has never got up to say a word about that aspect. I have never heard Senator Walters speak about the iniquitous principles that the Liberal Government administered during eight of the past 12 years. Suddenly, in 1984, Senator Walters gets up in this place and says: 'This is terrible. The things we did during all that time were terrible. This horrible Labor Government has come in and actually codified the principles under which we administered this legislation'. Senator Walters's tears are crocodile tears, and I am pointing out that fact to people. There were advisory committees and consultancies were let, but nothing was done . When the Labor Party came to office we had a clear age care policy, but we inherited the problems of nursing home funding that had been exacerbated by our predecessors' inactivity. The Government's policy objectives in relation to nursing home funding were clearly stated by my colleague, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), in his second reading speech on the National Health Amendment Bill 1983. He stated: Existing nursing home benefits and deficit funding arrangements will be replaced by program grants paid to nursing homes. These program grants will be based on standard costs for the services delivered less the income received by the homes through standard patient contributions. The program grant system will take some time to develop. In the meantime the existing funding arrangements for nursing homes will be maintained. The Minister continued: In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that the Government is able to continue the application of policies and practices in nursing homes fees control , established and supported by successive governments, pending the introduction of the present Government's residential care program. The particular change that would enable the continuation of the existing arrangements was the provision for the Minister to make the fee determination principles that are now the subject of this disallowance motion. It was the Government's objective in 1983 when the legislation was enacted, and it remains the Government's intention that there should be an orderly transition from the present funding arrangements to program grants. The principles that the Opposition seeks to disallow were developed in consultation with interested bodies, including the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia. There is substantial agreement that the principles reflect existing policy. I add that the Nursing Homes Association did not endorse the approach to profitability reflected in the principles. Of course it did not, but I shall say more about that later. It is important to note that we have had negotiations and that those negotiations continue. The need for nursing home fees to be determined in an orderly manner was recognised by Mr Justice Woodward, whose remarks have been quoted today. He recognised that aspect in the court case involving the Alexandra private nursing hospital when he said: In an area as important as the calculation of profits for nursing homes there must necessarily be a substantial degree of uniformity of approach to questions of principle, or injustice as between nursing homes could become rife. It would create obvious difficulties if different delegates were to adopt different criteria in deciding when to depart from historic costs in order to allow much larger profits based on current valuations. There is much to be said for the view that exceptions to such a general rule should be made in a consistent and co-ordinated way by the Minister who is responsible to the Parliament for both the economic and equitable administration of the legislation. The fee control principles will provide the basis for the high degree of conformity and the equitable administration of the legislation which Mr Justice Woodward said was needed. They will go some way towards satisfying one of the industry's longstanding complaints that there is, in fact, no consistency and no uniformity in setting fees either between or within States. The need for an orderly approach in taking nursing home financing decisions is of particular significance, as nursing home fees must be met either by taxpayers or patients. The Government's expenditure on nursing homes is now about $1,000m a year, so it is vital for the Government to consider responsibly the interests of patients, taxpayers and nursing home proprietors. To give the industry overly generous profitability would result in an enormous extra cost to the community, but that is not to say that the industry's legitimate profit aspirations should be ignored. Although it is certainly true that the interests of the patients and taxpayers must be protected, it is equally true, as I have said, that proprietors have a right to earn a profit from their business. The reasons why people invest in a business and their expectations of what they want from the business are very complex, particularly in the nursing home industry. Investors may choose the nursing home industry for no other reason than the profit the business generates . Alternatively, they may seek the security of investment which Government regulation brings to the industry. They may also seek the capital gain on either the asset, the business, or both. Some enter the industry out of a sense of altruism but even then it could be argued that they deserve a fair level of profit on their investment and we do not argue with that principle at all. Against this background I think it is very difficult to determine exactly what a fair level of profit is for the industry. The industry is protected; it is so protected that it is virtually riskless. Proprietors are almost guaranteed 100 per cent occupancy because of the limitations on bed numbers imposed by successive governments. Proprietors are assured of minimal bad debts and a regular cash flow because the majority of their income comes from either government benefits or payments from patient's pensions. Investment in the industry provides a source of employment for many proprietors or their families and there are intangible benefits which flow from owning and operating one's business. There are a number of other factors which may influence the level of profitability of a nursing home such as the capital gearing or whether the home is freehold or leased. But the fact that the problem is complex does not mean that we should ignore it altogether as the present Opposition did when it was in government over the eight years I have referred to. As I said earlier, a number of half-hearted attempts, half-finished consultancies and half-baked ideas arose during that time but there was never any real attempt to address the difficult question of nursing home profitability, a question that Senator Walters and Senator Baume apparently now find, from the luxury of the Opposition benches, an easy question. The present Government, within the first half of its first term in office, set up a working party of industry and departmental representatives to examine this complex question of profitability. It would certainly be going too far to suggest that there is complete agreement on how this question should be resolved but I am sure that the representatives of the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia would agree that some progress has been made. The basic task of the working party is to identify realistic options for changes to the profitability policy which would be compatible with both the existing funding arrangements and the proposed residential care grants. The working party has already met twice and discussed a number of possible approaches and these are currently being further developed. It is expected that the final report will be put to the Minister for Health in the near future; in fact he expects it to be put to him in about a month. The fact that this Government took the initiative in setting up the working party on profitability clearly came as a great surprise to the industry. After years of distrust and suspicion in its dealing with previous governments it certainly approached the working party with some caution and some scepticism. I think that is understandable given the treatment it received previously. I believe there is now a more trusting and productive basis and we can come to a reasonable understanding. The effect of the previous Government's activities on the industry can be gauged, I think, by the split produced within the industry and that is what this disallowance motion is all about. The national body with which the Government negotiates is the Nursing Homes and Private Hospitals Association of Australia. The previous Government's intransigence and the inability of that Association to gain any concessions in profitability cannot be discounted in the decision by Victorian nursing homes to break away from it and form its own group called the Private and Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria-the PGHAV. I mention this matter for two reasons: Firstly, it shows what an effect the previous Government had on the industry and, secondly, the PGHAV has a significant role to play in this debate on this disallowance motion. It is the Private and Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria which has put the Opposition up to this disallowance motion. It is manipulating the Opposition to have these fee principles disallowed while the national body, with which the Federal Government negotiates, is taking the more constructive path of negotiating an amendment to the principles on profitability. We have an industry which is split; we have a break-away group in one State. The group has broken way from the national body which has been negotiating with the Government and it has formed the PGHAV. I think anyone in this place who has received correspondence from these various groups will realise who has put the Opposition up to what it is doing and what it is about today. The PGHAV, having deprived itself of direct access to government by breaking away from the national body, has resorted to this confrontationist approach and it has found, of course, a ready ally in the current Opposition which seems to be intent on continuing the negative approach to this problem which it had when it was in government. For eight of the 12 years of the application of these principles the former Government did nothing or what it did do came to nothing. It built up this problem that we are facing now and it built up this atmosphere of distrust. Now, when the Government gets together with the national body, negotiates with the national body, establishes a working party which is about to report, codifies the principles awaiting the report of that working party so that we can get to grips with this real problem of profitability, along comes the Opposition determined to knock and determined to oppose everything that happens. It has no trouble in finding an ally in the Private and Geriatric Hospitals Association of Victoria. It is true that the nursing home industry in Victoria has experienced a compression in profitability over the years but the fact is that the situation is not as dramatic as the PGHAV would have us believe. There are still many people seeking approval to build new homes and proprietors are able to sell their businesses at prices which include large components for goodwill. The amounts paid are known for 16 transactions completed in Victoria since 1 July 1983. The fact is that the goodwill per bed ranged from $2,144 to $8,500 and in only four cases was the goodwill figure below $5,500 per bed. I put it to honourable senators that that is hardly the description of an industry which the PGHAV claims has been driven to the brink of bankruptcy. Those are the ones we know about. People from the PGHAV have had much influence on what the Opposition is about here today. They have been attempting to influence all honourable senators in this place behind the back of the national body. They have been trying to undermine the reasonable negotiations of the national body by crying poor mouth in this place and talking about bankruptcy. I do not believe that the figures I have just quoted from 1 July 1983 add up to an industry which is about to go down the drain. The real question is: What on earth does the Opposition seek to gain by disallowing the principles as it is trying to do today? There are nearly 50 principles providing for the setting of fees on a consistent basis that Mr Justice Woodward talked about and all of these principles could be lost because of a concern over one principle, important though that principle is, which relates to the return on investment. The disallowance of the principles will not of itself result in any change in profitability policy. However, it will result in more energy being devoted to disputation within the existing financing arrangements and to greater scope for inconsistent decision-making. Uncertainty for both proprietors and patients will be increased, and endeavours to introduce the new program grants arrangements will be made all the harder. I emphasise that the Government introduced the fee principles only to enable existing policies to remain in place while the program grant arrangements are being developed. It is obvious that the complexities of the industry are such that we cannot move to a new system overnight. Some development work is already under way in relation to nursing home and hospital costs, and we will shortly commence a study into standards of care. But whilst this work is being done we need to continue the existing schemes on a fair and equitable basis, and the fee control principles hold out the only hope of allowing substantial progress towards residential care grants and an orderly changeover from one system to the other. I have said before and the Minister for Health has said on many occasions that the Government accepts that some modification of the principle of profitability may be required and is working with the industry towards an acceptable solution of that problem. But to disallow all the principles because one requires amendment is counter-productive and, I suggest, puts us that much further away from a better scheme. The actions that will be taken in this matter are as follows. The working party , to which I and other honourable senators have referred, will be asked to report as soon as possible. The Minister for Health expects that this working party will report in one month. The matter will then be considered by Cabinet as soon as practicable. The Minister for Health is well aware of the position of nursing homes with lower profitability and he will draw the Cabinet's attention to that matter. In answer to Senator Macklin's question, we do not need legislation when the decision is made. We can amend the principles. This is what we are investigating . This is the matter that is under consideration. We do not need to introduce legislation. I can give an undertaking that this matter will be considered and decided as soon as possible, as soon as practicable. But it is a complex matter, as I have said. We shall do all that we can do to have the Government's decision finalised quickly. I cannot give the absolute guarantee requested by Senator Macklin, but I can give the guarantee that we shall act expeditiously. That fact that we have acted at all is a considerable advance over the previous Government 's approach. That Government was quite happy with these principles when in government-or, if it was not happy, it found it too hard to do anything about it . We have done something about it; we are in the process of doing something about it. In the meantime we need to have these principles codified in this way. To throw the baby out with the bath water because we have been under pressure from one section of the industry which has broken away from its national body and has put pressure for some on the present Opposition would be a silly thing to do. For the Opposition to find principles iniquitous and to find that there is suddenly a need for urgent action this week, next week or the week after, having for eight years done nothing, smacks of hypocrisy. I urge honourable senators not to support this disallowance motion, for all the reasons I have stated, for all the reasons that the Minister for Health has stated, so that we can get on to providing a coherent and sensible system of aged persons accommodation in this country, so that we can establish the program grants that we wish to establish, and so that we can do this in an atmosphere that lacks the disputation, both inside and outside the courts, by which this area has been characterised in recent times. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.19) —in reply-It is unfortunate that Senator Grimes's response has tended to be pursued as an ad hominem argument and with invective. The proposal to disallow and the motion to disallow were presented in measured and specific terms in relation to a specific judgment in a court, and the matters to which we have referred and on which we base the motion to disallow have not been addressed or answered by Senator Grimes. The problem is a problem of a fair go. As Senator Macklin said, it is a question of fairness as well as the law. It is a question of fairness which applies to well established nursing homes because they are forced to use a historical valuation for their assets and because there is no capacity to use current valuation. That is the problem in a nutshell. We have been trying to respond to criticisms raised by Mr Justice Woodward, criticisms which are current and recent, and we have relied upon the judge's words in our motion and in the arguments which we put, and those matters raised by the judge were not addressed by Senator Grimes; they were not responded to, and he has chosen to ignore them. In trying to respond to the particular questions put by the Australian Democrats, he responded to the first question, as to some recent sales, whatever value that may be, but in relation to the Australian Democrats' other question, about definite proposals which might be advanced to resolve the problem by other means, all that Senator Grimes has proposed is that at some time in the future-'as soon as practicable'-without guarantee, the Government will do something, as yet unspecified, to overcome the problem. The disallowance would encourage and hasten the Government. It would add resolution to its need to do something about the problem. If the motion for disallowance is not passed, let us be frank: The Government has no urgency in doing anything about this problem. It can sit back and put it into the never- never basket if it wishes so to do. The disallowance motion is not an argument for anarchy in the industry. It is not an argument seeking to discourage the elderly. It is not some sudden recognition, after a period in government, that these are bad guidelines. It is an attempt to respond to a court judgment by a senior justice in which he says that the regulations may be legal but they are not fair. Because they are unfair, we want to do something about them. We have been asked why we are moving on this matter now. Every honourable senator knows how disingenuous Senator Grimes's argument was in that respect. We are moving now because this is our only possible opportunity to move, because this is subordinate legislation. It is subordinate legislation which has come before us now, and if we do not move now the Senate will never again have a chance to move for this disallowance. Further, if the disallowance is successful , the Government can, after the appropriate interval, come back with a new set of guidelines which will avoid the charge of unfairness which has been made in the court, and the Government could come back with new arrangements. Senator Grimes's response is inadequate to convince me that the Government is committed to overcoming the unfairness to which the judge referred. The disallowance will not prevent the Government taking action to correct that situation. It is an appropriate course to take, and I commend the motion to honourable senators. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Martin, K. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Jessop, D. S. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Scott, D. B. McIntosh, G. D. Question so resolved in the negative. [COGNATE DEBATE: SELECT COMMITTEE ON ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A JUDGE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF A JUDGE] Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.29) —I move: That the Senate- (a) refer- (i) all evidence given before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and (ii) all documentary or other material furnished to the Committee, relevant to the Briese allegation, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration by him whether a prosecution should be brought against the Judge; and (b) request the Director of Public Prosecutions, should he conclude that a prosecution not be brought, to furnish a report to it on the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The debate we are about to commence is one of the most important in the history of this place. I hope that we can approach it in a constructive and moderate spirit. The Government proposals for the resolution of this matter were prepared and have been advanced in that spirit. I continue to hope that the force of those proposals, their moderation and the good legal and political sense that lies behind them will in fact be accepted, if not by the Opposition which appears to have some axes of its own to grind, then at least by the Australian Democrats. It is not necessary for me, given the very long statement I made yesterday, to track over the whole series of considerations which have to be taken into account and which are relevant to the resolution of this matter, and I do not propose to do so. I simply want to set out, as clearly and succinctly as I can, what the Government's proposal is and why we advanced it, and indicate why we do not support the two alternative models which have been proposed, so far at least, by the Liberals and the Australian Democrats. The starting point for the argument in support of the Government's proposal is simply this: We are dealing here with an allegation which, if substantiated, would amount to criminal misbehaviour of a kind which is clearly within the kind of conduct contemplated by section 72 of the Constitution. We are not talking here about some lesser form of misbehaviour which does not amount to a criminal offence or which is not directly related to the discharge of the duties of office. We are not talking about misbehaviour which falls within that disputed twilight zone which has been the subject of so much debate in recent weeks and months in this place. The allegation of Mr Briese involves two fairly simple interrelated issues of fact: whether, on the one hand, Mr Justice Murphy used the words 'Now how about my little mate'; and secondly, if so, whether he used them with the intent to influence, perhaps pervert, the course of justice. If the answer to both those questions is yes-that is to say, he used the words in question and did so with that intent-then it is clear that an offence of some kind has been committed, probably an attempt to pervert the course of justice within the meaning of section 43 of the Crimes Act. But if the answer to either of those questions is no-that is to say, either he did not use the words at all or, if he did, he did not use them with any such intent to influence-then it is clear that not only has no offence of any kind been committed, but also there has not been any lesser form of misbehaviour either-unless one adopts the extreme view that mere social association, mere social intercourse with someone of an allegedly dubious character or reputation is in itself enough to justify dismissal from the judiciary. No one, I think, has taken such an extreme view-certainly not on the Committee-and it would be a quite extraordinary and outrageous application of guilt by association were that to occur. Because the allegation is criminal, because it does not involve any lesser form of misbehaviour-if it is not in fact criminal-and because there is no doubt that a criminal conviction in the courts for an offence of this kind would constitute proved misbehaviour such as to justify an address, were the Parliament minded to make it, for a judge's removal, the Government strongly believes that the most appropriate way of tackling this problem in the first instance is to let the ordinary criminal process take its course. That means, in the absence of any willingness by Mr Briese to initiate the prosecution process himself, referring the matter in the first instance to the Director of Public Prosecutions, letting him examine the primary evidence, letting him weigh and balance that evidence against public interest considerations that always have to be taken into account in determining whether the prosecution shall proceed, and then deciding whether a prosecution is warranted. That is the very kind of job the Director of Public Prosecutions was established by statute by this Parliament to do, that is what he is completely equipped to do. Senator Missen —That is not his duty. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is what he does every day of the week in relation to other less sensational matters and, despite the repeated assertions that have been made by Senator Chaney and Senator Durack and, a moment ago, by interjection of Senator Missen, that is what he is willing to do. That is what he has expressed his willingness to do in the matter now before us. Let us hear no more of that canard. It is not proposed that the Director of Public Prosecutions constitute some kind of mini-royal commission, running some major investigation of his own. It is proposed only, and it has only ever been proposed by the Government, that the Director of Public Prosecutions play his ordinary role of reviewing available evidence, weighing and balancing the weight of that evidence, and determining whether or not a prosecution should proceed. If the DPP, after evaluating the weight of the provable evidence that is available to him and after evaluating the weight of the competing public interest considerations, takes the view that a prosecution ought to proceed, that prosecution will proceed and the matter will be tested where it is entirely appropriate that it be tested-in the criminal courts of this land. If he decides that a prosecution is not warranted on the basis of the material before him and those considerations, then it will be appropriate for the matter to be considered again by this Parliament for such further action as this Parliament thinks appropriate. Only 10 days or so would be involved in allowing that process to work itself out. Given the nature of the allegations that are involved here, it is quite extraordinary that that course should be resisted, as it has been resisted and as no doubt it will be resisted unless some reasoned sanity prevails today on the other side of this Parliament. The appropriateness of this course being taken should not be in doubt where an allegation of a criminal character is involved because allegations of that kind need to be determined in a rigorous, detached and expert way. They need to be determined by reference to and close regard to appropriate standards of proof, which in the case of a criminal matter is, of course, beyond reasonable doubt. I find it extraordinary that we should have the constantly reiterated suggestion that the criminal courts and the criminal process, and the DPP as the way into that process, are an inappropriate vehicle for testing the force, the strength, the weight, the credibility of the allegation that is now before us. Let me test that assertion by asking: What if the allegation in question here were one of murder? What if the allegation here against a judge of the realm were one of armed robbery? What if the allegation were one of commercial fraud? What if, as has been the case in the past, the allegation were one of a sexual assault, or a sexual indecency of some kind? Would anyone suggest that that kind of allegation was appropriate to be determined in the first instance by a Senate committee unless other available options had been exhausted? Would anyone seriously suggest that a matter so obviously criminal in character would appropriately be dealt with by a Senate committee, with all the consequences that flow from a determination of such a kind? Would anyone make that suggestion ? That is the question which has to be answered, and answered during this debate by the Opposition and by the Australian Democrats it they are to emerge from this debate with any shred of credibility intact in the way they have approached it. It seems that the assumption is being made in a number of quarters, not least by those opposite in this Parliament, that the Director of Public Prosecutions is somehow bound to find that there is no case to justify a prosecution proceeding. That assumption, to the extent that it is being made, is utterly unjustified. On the one hand it involves some suggestion, explicit or implicit- it has been pretty explicit from Senator Chaney, who is now in the chamber-that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not capable of exercising or likely to exercise any kind of independent judgment. That is an offensive suggestion, whether it is made by Senator Chaney or by anyone else. I reject it out of hand and any fair-minded person would reject it out of hand. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. An allegation has just been made by the Attorney-General which is totally unfounded and untrue. He should withdraw it. If he wishes to cast aspersion on Mr Temby he should do so himself and not put words in my mouth which were not there. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask that this very important debate be conducted as rationally as it can be. Senator GARETH EVANS —I repeat: If the assumption is being made that the DPP is bound to find against some prosecution proceeding, either that assumption is based on some explicit or implicit suggestion that the DPP is not capable of or willing to exercise independent judgment; or alternatively, the assumption involves a quite remarkable lack of confidence in the judgment of Senators Durack and Lewis, who have already determined on the basis of exactly this same material which it is proposed to put to the DPP that there is a prima facie case to answer. If this motion is passed, the Director of Public Prosecutions will have before him all the material that was available to the Senate. He may wish to conduct, through the Australian Federal Police, some further investigation or inquiry in relation to some aspects of that material. Apparently there is a very substantial bulk of material available in the Committee proceedings. There is obviously some weight to be attached to that material, properly greater than the normal run of the mill allegations that have been trumpeted around the media and the public arena in recent months, insofar as that material was put to the Committee on oath and insofar as it was tested by Committee examination. Accordingly, there is no reason why the DPP should not be able to make appropriate decisions about whether a prosecution should lie on the basis of that material and there is no reason at all to make any assumptions about what the outcome of his review would be. What happens-I have to address the question-if the DPP finds, after all of that , that there is no basis to prosecute, if he advises against a prosecution proceeding? In an ordinary case that would be the end of the matter. But this is no ordinary case, as we are all well aware, because the issue is the application of section 72 of the Constitution. There is no doubt that Parliament has a constitutional role to play in this respect. Parliament has that role at two levels. In the first place there is the question of establishing proof of misbehaviour. I have readily acknowledged that that is a role that can be played by Parliament itself. However, I have also argued that it is a role much more appropriately played by the courts rather than the Parliament when the nature of the alleged misbehaviour in question is of the kind that it is here-an actual criminal offence. The other way in which Parliament obviously becomes involved-necessarily involved this time-in the constitutional process under section 72 is, of course, the address stage of the proceedings on the basis of misbehaviour which may be proved, as I have argued, either in the courts or by some preliminary procedure in Parliament itself. Of course, that provision in section 72 vests a discretion in the Parliament as to whether, even if it is satisfied that there is proved misbehaviour, it nonetheless still wants to address on the basis of it. None of those matters is in contention between us. The Government has not ruled out the possible appropriateness of further parliamentary committee inquiry in the event that there is some genuine doubt-not spurious doubt, not politically contrived or politically motivated doubt, but some genuine doubt or some genuine concern- still lingering after the DPP's report comes in. There is no question here or anywhere else of a cover-up approach by this Government. I have always acknowledged that Parliament has a constitutional role to play and it may be appropriate for Parliament to play it if there is a continuing lingering concern of a genuine kind after the ordinary processes of the criminal law have been exhausted in the way I have suggested. What I do say and what the Government says is that if there is to be any further inquiry by the Parliament it has to be based on a very narrow and limited approach of the kind proposed by His Honour's counsel, which was accepted, of course, by Senators Durack and Lewis in their report. Essentially it should be a natural justice procedure based on a hearing or a putting back into the record of the primary evidence that is there, the cross examination of the witnesses by the judge or his counsel, and with the opportunity then for the judge to make his own decision as to whether he wants to give evidence and submit to the Senate's questioning. Thus the Government's position is very simple and very straightforward. I repeat: Since the allegation here is criminal in character we should exhaust the criminal prosecution option first, which involves as the first port of call the reference of this material to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Secondly, the Government's position involves an acknowledgement that a parliamentary committee and Parliament itself may have some further involvement, although it is undesirable to exercise it so long as the criminal process remains an available option. The Parliament's role, if it does reconstitute a committee, should be confined in the way I have indicated. I repeat that there can be no justification for the allegation advanced by the Opposition-and repeated by the Fairfax Press in particular-that this Government is engaged in some sort of attempt to hide this matter, to put it under the carpet. The Government's proposals as I have outlined them are consistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. The Government's proposal will enable the expeditious resolution of this matter and will ensure that justice-not Mr Justice Murphy, as one cartoonist had it-is both done, and seen to be done. There can be no credible justification for resisting the course that is proposed in this resolution. I do not believe the Australian Democrats have any justification other than a misguided perception of what is appropriate. I am much less confident about the justification operating in the minds of the Opposition. I suspect it is based on a desire to prolong the agony for both Mr Justice Murphy and the High Court in the hope that something will turn up in this process of perceived political advantage to the Opposition. There can be no justification for the alternative courses proposed. I will explain why. The Australian Democrats proposal-at least as it existed last night-was for a three-person commission created directly by the Senate. There may be some superficial attraction in taking the matter out of the political arena, which is the way in which this proposal for an independent parliamentary commission has been justified by the Australian Democrats, however it is not a proposition which can survive close scrutiny. It is a proposition which is subject to three absolutely fatal flaws. The most basic, the most intractable and the most irresolvable flaw is that Parliament cannot delegate the proving function to such a person or body. There can be proof for the purposes of section 72 of the Constitution only if that proof is established to the satisfaction of Parliament itself or a court. Therefore, any findings made by such a commission would need to be second guessed by either the Parliament itself or one of its committees or the criminal process. That is a flaw and the reasoning behind the statement I have just made. The argument I made is spelt out at length in my statement of yesterday and I have no need to repeat it. It is a flaw incapable of correction however much huffing and puffing may occur from the other side. The second fatal flaw in the proposal for a parliamentary commission is that it is wrong in principle for an allegation of criminal misbehaviour to be dealt with otherwise than by the properly constituted criminal courts and the ordinary criminal process. It is wrong for a parliamentary commission, exercising the kinds of powers that are proposed to be vested in it, open-ended and not limited by any of the ordinary constraints that apply to the courts of this land, to be passing judgment and determining upon the kinds of allegations that are here in issue. Senator Missen —That was not your view in 1980, was it? Senator GARETH EVANS —Are you talking about the Mundroola affair? That was in the context, you silly man, of a different kind of allegation of misbehaviour which had nothing to do with breaches of the criminal law, which had to do with the first leg of misbehaviour which is misconduct in the conduct of one's judicial office. If you cannot understand the difference between that kind of misbehaviour and the kind of misbehaviour that involves an allegation of criminal misconduct you not only ought not to be hanging up your legal shingle but also ought not to be in this place. I repeat-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair. Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, before you raise a point of order I ask Senator Evans to address his remarks through the Chair and to withdraw the phrase 'silly man'. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I withdraw the phrase 'silly old man'. The PRESIDENT —Senator Georges, do you wish to raise a point of order? Senator Georges —Mr President, I think your ruling satisfied me. What I take objection to is that we have a very serious matter before the House today in public and broadcast debate; a person's position and reputation very much depends on this debate. Yesterday there were some emotional outbursts; I may have made one or two. Today I think that we ought to be listening to some reasoned debate on the matter without the benefit of-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I have already made the point that there should be calmness and rational debate. I suggest that you do not now take up the Attorney-General's time. Senator GARETH EVANS —The third fatal flaw with the proposal for a parliamentary commission is that it will necessarily, by its very nature, involve very substantial delay in creating a proper resolution of this matter. That, as I said yesterday, and I do not need to labour the point, is bad for the High Court and bad for the institution of the judiciary generally. Because of those flaws and because we believe that it is misconceived in principle and constitutionally unsound to go down that track the Government will, as I said yesterday, not support legislation to establish such a commission. In the absence of such enabling legislation the proposal simply cannot-as it has been put forward by the Democrats-be made to work. The Senate cannot, by simple resolution of its own, confer upon some body such as this the powers, privileges and protections of the Senate itself. Without those powers and protections no one in his right mind would be prepared to take on the job of commissioner. Without those powers and protections and privilege against the application of the law of defamation no witness could reasonably be required to appear before it. One could expect an immediate challenge to the makeup of such a body should it proceed to be purportedly established and should it seek to call someone before it on that basis. That leaves the Opposition proposal to create essentially exactly the same kind of commission comprising one or more commissioners exercising, it seems, exactly the same powers and functions as those proposed in the Democrats' motion but this time with the commission appointed by some reconstituted committee rather than by the Senate itself and appointed in such a way that it somehow is to shelter behind the umbrella of that committee. It is a very strange animal indeed that the Opposition is contemplating. It is certainly not one that can be made to live and breathe in the political and legal air of the real world. As an animal it is a sideshow freak, perhaps plausible to the gullible but in fact a complete fake. I think I can explain why that is so by making a couple of very simple points. Either the commission-- Senator Durack —You can fix it up with legislation. Why don't you do that? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Durack is acknowledging that it needs to be fixed up by legislation, I fully share the point of view he seems to be expressing. The Opposition seems to want it both ways. The problem with the proposal is that either the proposed commission is completely subordinate to the proposed Senate committee, not exercising any independent powers and not making any independent judgments of its own-in other words playing some kind of glorified counsel assisting role-or if it is not that it is to be completely independent of the committee; it is to exercise powers of its own; it is to make judgments and determinations of its own as to whether there is misbehaviour proved or capable of proof. In other words, as Senator Chaney said this morning on AM, letting the cat right out of the bag in the process, of course, what is proposed on this view of it is a kind of royal commission to do exactly the same job as a royal commission, with the same sorts of powers as a royal commission but appointed by the Parliament-in this instance indirectly by a parliamentary committee-rather than by the Executive. Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice Questions without Notice One only has to state the issue in those terms and appreciate that this animal has to be either one kind or the other-there are no in-between circumstances that I can contemplate-to see the impossible weakness of this proposal which has been devised by the Liberal brains trust and the muddle-headed legal wombats that seem to lie behind it. On the one hand the commission is completely subordinate to the Committee, in which case, the enterprise has done absolutely nothing to take the matter outside the political arena, which is promoted as being its major attraction. What we would have is something that is quite indistinguishable from simply a re-established committee, with all the weaknesses that that involves, and which have already been spelt out. Alternatively, this particular commission that is proposed is to be completely independent of the Committee-notwithstanding that it sits periodically it seems in the same room-conceptually and legally, making its own judgments, exercising its own powers and not relying upon the authority exercised in each case by the Committee itself. If that is the model, it simply cannot work because it cannot be vested with these sorts of powers and functions by simple resolution. There has to be legislation to make it work. As I have said, and as I say again, there will not be such legislation. There will not be Government support for such legislation, for all the reasons of principle that I have already set out. So the situation is this: There are no valid principled reasons for denying access of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the material which has been compiled and accumulated by the Committee; nor is there even a practical reason for denying it. I have indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions believes that he can do the job within 10 days or so. Senator Jack Evans —Does he want to do it? Senator GARETH EVANS —He does express, and will express publicly, if anyone chooses to ask him-the Press has chosen to ask him-a willingness to do the job in the terms that I have outlined. He has indicated a willingness and a capacity to do it within 10 days or so and, obviously, on even the most optimistic scenario, and leaving aside the merits of those scenarios, even on the most optimistic version of it, it would take at least that long to set in train either the mechanism proposed by the Australian Democrats or the mechanism proposed by the Opposition. If the Opposition and the Australian Democrats are to credibly persist with the approach that resists the proposals that have been put forward by the Government and which are embodied in this motion, they are going to have to produce a lot better argument than they have produced so far. I do not believe they can. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.00) —There is one matter that we can all agree upon-that we are considering today a very serious and very troubling question which is of major constitutional significance. Nobody would ever have denied that that has been the role that the Senate has had to play in this matter since it first surfaced earlier this year. No one denies-certainly I do not deny-that the Government is faced with a most difficult problem in deciding how to handle the allegations that have been made in relation to Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia and, in particular, the matters which are now before us-those made by Mr Briese. Because of the Constitution, it is a problem which has to be faced by the Parliament. Nothing the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has said today, yesterday or in any other debate even seeks to contradict that statement, although he seems at all times to want, as far as possible, to reduce the role of the Parliament. I agree that the problem is not one of the Government's making, but I also emphasise that it is not of the Opposition's making either. The Government is responsible for the way it handles the problem and that is why we in the Opposition have criticised the Government. We believe it has fallen down throughout the whole of this affair. As I said yesterday, when the matter surfaced earlier this year the Attorney-General tried his very best, on the very first day, with the very first word that was spoken in this chamber, to silence the Opposition from the word go. He strenuously resisted the establishment of any parliamentary committee. If honourable senators remember, the first proposal we put forward was a joint committee from the two Houses. He then strenuously resisted the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. The Senate Committee, which finally had to be forced upon the Government because of the attitude that the Attorney-General and the Government adopted, and apparently still adopt, did a conscientious and useful job, but it failed to resolve the problem because it was equally divided in its recommendations. The Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats-indeed, everybody in this chamber-are now agreed that the matter cannot be left where it is on the basis of the Senate committee report, and further action is clearly required. The issue is: What action is appropriate in these circumstances? The Attorney-General, in his statement yesterday and in the motion that is before us for consideration today, has proposed that the matter be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have already indicated the problems that I believe exist with that process. I expressed this in debate last night and I will briefly refer to these problems again in debate today. I emphasise that the Attorney-General, in proposing this solution to the problem, made it very clear in his statement yesterday, and again today, that it does not exclude, and cannot exclude, the role of Parliament even if it is referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In his statement yesterday he said: Further consideration by the Parliament of the issues involved is an option which is certainly technically available on the views expressed on section 72 of the Constitution by the Solicitor-General and by me. Having dealt with how he sees the issues and options if we followed his view or the Government's view that it be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions , he said on page 15 of his statement: In the event, however, that the DPP should advise that on the material presently available there is no basis on which a prosecution could or should proceed, it may be that the Parliament-the Senate-would wish to reconsider the question of some further Committee proceeding. Certainly, for reasons I shall shortly set out, there would appear to be no other appropriate machinery on which Parliament could properly rely for such further consideration. We will deal with that aspect a little later. The fact is that the Attorney- General, in two places in his statement yesterday, and again today, made it quite clear that his proposal for the reference to the DPP is by no means exclusive of the other options that the Senate has before it in this debate for determination. In fact, the reference to the DPP is delaying this matter, as the Attorney says, for 10 days. I do not understand how a DPP, who has not seen the material and does not know what is involved in it, can say now that it will take only 10 days. How does anybody who has not seen the material know that? The Attorney has said that he may want the police to investigate and so on. There can simply be no assurance-there should be no assurance by the DPP, who is going to do a proper job-by the DPP that it will only take him a particular time. All the Attorney's proposal is doing is further delaying the processes and the exercising of the responsibilities resting upon this Parliament and this chamber . I have already indicated that I believe that the Attorney's proposal of a reference to the DPP is a half-baked and half-hearted proposal. I have just given one reason. I repeat what I said last night. Another reason is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer of the Executive who is subject to the directions of the Attorney-General under his statute, Yet the Attorney-General believes that the Parliament ought to accept that gentleman's views in regard to this matter. As I said last night, let us contrast that with the view this chamber and this Attorney-General took when he was in opposition two years ago in relation to the documents which the Senate was demanding from the government of the day and which that Government said had Executive privilege attached to them because they might affect the course of legal proceedings. That view was supported by the then Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, a most distinguished and experienced lawyer of great standing. His view was tabled in support of the former Government. The Attorney-General, in opposition, would not accept that opinion from the Solicitor-General, a man with as much statutory independence as the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Attorney-General, in opposition, and members of the Opposition would not accept that and insisted on the Parliament establishing its own independence. It is perfectly proper that the Parliament should insist upon having its own independent advisers, not those drawn from an Executive government. As I have said, the other objection to reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions is that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be deciding simply on a question of prosecution. The Attorney-General made clear in his statement that there are many considerations a prosecutor has to take as to whether he will prosecute. Let me again remind this chamber of what the Attorney -General did only 12 months ago when he had to make a decision as to whether he would prosecute the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, on matters that were referred to him by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Attorney-General took into account a large number of considerations other than whether there was a prima facie case and announced to the world, while a royal commission was sitting on the very subject, that he would not prosecute. Clearly, there are many different considerations that a Director of Public Prosecutions has to take into account and the Parliament has to take into account here in regard to whether there has been misbehaviour or whether there are facts which may amount to a criminal offence. This Senate is concerned with the facts themselves and the quality of those facts as establishing misbehaviour. Quite different questions and quite different considerations come into it. One other matter that I omitted to mention last night in this regard is the assumption of the Attorney-General in what is really rather a logic chopping exercise in his statement yesterday and again today about its being either a criminal offence or nothing; there is no middle ground. I read and I am sure that many honourable senators read an opinion by the Solicitor-General of New South Wales, Mary Gaudron, which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald in particular and perhaps elsewhere. That is where I read it; we all could have read it there. There is no reason to believe that it is not a genuine report of the opinion she gave to the Premier of New South Wales. In that opinion she engages in some fairly heavy legal reasoning about section 43 of the Crimes Act. She draws a distinction between an approach by somebody to the magistrate hearing a case as distinct from an approach to the Chief Magistrate. She is of the view that there may not have been a breach of this section of the Crimes Act if the approach was made to the Chief Magistrate rather than the presiding magistrate. So some technical defence may well be available in the prosecution of a criminal trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions might decide that that technical defence was available and would not prosecute for that reason, or there might be an acquittal for that reason; we do not know. The jury does not find facts; it just convicts or acquits. It does not find facts; it does not give reasons. We would not necessarily be better informed if the criminal process took effect here. What difference would it make if there were a technical defence here? We want to know whether the allegations by Mr Briese are factual, whether there are sufficient facts to infer an intention on the part of the judge when he approached Mr Briese. What difference does it make whether that is or is not a criminal offence if there was that pressure brought, if that approach were made for that purpose to Mr Briese, the Chief Magistrate of New South Wales? Clearly that would be of such turpitude as to justify a finding of misbehaviour if those facts were proven. It does not matter whether it is a criminal offence; that is irrelevant to the question. The Attorney knows it is irrelevant because he has conceded all along, although he argues later on other questions, that this is a matter that has to be decided by the Parliament and not by anybody else. Those are the objections. No doubt there are many others. Every time I think about this matter I think of other objections to this chamber referring this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It may be that when Parliament has disposed of its consideration of this matter the material should be referred to the Director of Public Prosecution. I do not say that Parliament should not give the material to the Director of Public Prosecutions in due course. I turn to the other questions that are before us, the notice of motion that I have put down and the notice of motion of the Australian Democrats. I think the Attorney-General made a better job of things in his statement last night than he did today, quite honestly. Last night he set out some reasons why there are objections to what he calls 'further parliamentary procedures'. These are set out on page 14 of the statement he made yesterday. He said: . . . there would seem to be a strong case for an independent expert assessment of the question of whether there is a prima facie case, such as to justify a full scale 'judicial' proceeding . . . That is why he has said: 'Referred it to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have already dealt with that'. But what we are saying and the Democrats are saying-presumably this is what the Attorney is saying-is that we need to have an independent assessment of the facts. Because the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge could not agree, Parliament needs an independent expert to assess the facts. We quite agree with that. That is the reason for our proposal as well. The Attorney stated further in regard to his objections to the proposals of ourselves and the Democrats: . . . while there may not always be any alternative procedure available for the resolution of . . . section 72 misbehaviour questions . . . when as here the allegation is of criminal conduct, the Senate should be very slow to proceed to try the issue itself rather than resorting to the ordinary criminal processes. As I have said, the two things are quite different. I want to refer to the opinion of the Solicitor-General of 24 February, which appears again in the supplemental opinion that was incorporated in Hansard by the Attorney-General yesterday. The Solicitor-General, as we all know, takes a very narrow view of misbehaviour. I do not agree with the narrowness of that view. It refers, he says, only to misbehaviour pertaining to judicial office, such as non-attendance , neglect, et cetera, and to: (2) the commission of an offence against the general law of such a quality as to indicate that the incumbent is unfit to exercise the office. He does not refer to the conviction of an offence. He makes it quite clear later in his opinion that in his view it is not the conviction of an offence but the commission of an offence which is misbehaviour. How does Dr Griffith say that may be proved? He says: A matter pertaining to office or a breach of the general law of the requisite seriousness in a matter not pertaining to office may be found by proof, in appropriate manner, to the Parliament in proceedings where the offender has been given proper notice and opportunity to defend himself. The Solicitor-General contemplates proof in a manner satisfactory to the Parliament where the offender has been given notice and an opportunity to defend himself. Mr Acting Deputy President, that is precisely what you and I agreed and proposed. We accepted that proposal of the counsel for Mr Hughes. Parliament can and must resolve these issues for itself. When all is said and done the Attorney says: 'Of course, the proper way to do it is to have a criminal process and a conviction and that will prove it'. But a conviction is proof only if the Parliament accepts it as proof. That would be for Parliament's deciding. The Parliament itself would be deciding that conviction is proof. The Parliament can decide what other appropriate measures of proof are satisfactory. The conviction of a criminal offence does not decide the matter of misbehaviour because the simple proof of a conviction does not equal misbehaviour. No one says that. It would have to be a conviction for an offence of sufficient moral turpitude to warrant being classed as misbehaviour. That does not in itself resolve the question. The Attorney, on page 14 of his statement, says: . . . allegations of criminal conduct- or any conduct which could amount to misbehaviour- demand compliance with vigorous procedures. Of course, the Senate also would require compliance with rigorous procedures and must comply with them itself. That is no reason why it has to go to a criminal court. Finally, the Attorney talks about the fact that a High Court judge is involved here and that: . . . consistently with separation of powers principles, that Parliament should involve itself in the process when, and only when, it is necessary . . . to do so. It is not necessary for it to do so now since 'proof' of misbehaviour may be sought by other means, namely the ordinary criminal processes- As I have said, they are not in themselves the determinants of this matter. Everybody agrees that the question in the end is whether the conduct has been sufficient to amount to misbehaviour under the Constitution. In the end that question must be determined by Parliament and there is no reason why the process of Parliament considering it should be delayed to allow any other processes outside its control to take place. They are, I believe, the four reasons the Attorney has advanced against what he calls further parliamentary procedures. All, in fact, point to the opposite conclusion, namely, that Parliament has to accept its responsibility and has to observe these principles. Independent advice has to be given to it, rigorous procedures followed and so forth. Parliament must do these things itself and it must do them promptly to resolve this question. We believe that the ideal way to resolve this situation is to adopt the proposal that the Australian Democrats have made, namely, that an independent commission or commissioners should be appointed to conduct a hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice and make findings, which would be reported to this Parliament, on the facts. I believe that the establishment of that commission would satisfy the need for Parliament to determine how misbehaviour or facts are to be proved. We cannot prove facts much better than by adopting that proposal. Those are the facts that we want to have proved specifically for us; we do not want simply to be told whether someone is guilty or not guilty or whether or not he will be prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We want the facts established for us to make our judgment as to whether misbehaviour has taken place. That is the judgment we have to make. Nobody would suggest that on receipt of that report the Senate is bound by it. It may not accept the reasoning of the commissioners but at least we would have independent experts of high authority exercising their completely non-political judgment in regard to these matters. Parliament will be far better informed to make its judgment if that process takes effect. I agree that the problem with that ideal solution is simply that there are doubts as to whether the Parliament can set up such a commission. The Democrats understand that and do not contend that there are not problems with it. But the problems can be so easily overcome. All the Government has to do is co-operate. Everyone, including the Attorney, agrees that the Parliament ought to have independent advice in relation to these matters. He believes that there should be rigorous procedures. Why does the Government not co-operate and pass the necessary legislation to put the matter beyond doubt? I do not say that we could not do it; we could do it and it may work, but why take risks on a matter of such importance? If the Attorney believes that it is of such importance, why does the Government not co-operate? Why does he take this dog in the manger stance? He took it yesterday, he has taken it again today and presumably he will maintain it. I hope better judgment than the Attorney's will be brought to bear on this matter on the part of the Government. It is so simple to give effect to the ideal solutions. The legislation could be introduced today. It could be through the Parliament by tomorrow. There is no impediment but the intransigence of the Attorney-General and, I regret to say, apparently of the Government. We must ask ourselves why that is so. We know the ideal solution. There is only one thing stopping it and that is the intransigence of this Government. That is why I say that I understand the Government's problem. I have sympathy for the Government's problem. It is not of the Government's making and it is not of our making. We have a major problem to which there is a simple solution. The Government must be judged by the quality of the solution that it brings forward, and it must be harshly judged here because it is so unwilling to co-operate in such a small thing to give effect to the proper solution of this matter. If the Government will not carry out its clear duty in this matter which, if we are to believe its rhetoric about the importance of this problem and so on, it would do, the Parliament, and the Senate, can act without the co-operation of the Government. My motion is designed to deal with the situation that we will face if the Government maintains its intransigence. The Senate can clearly establish a committee again. It can clearly give a committee powers to appoint a commissioner who can sit with it. The committee would have all the powers of the Senate to summon witnesses and would provide immunity for witnesses and the commissioner. By that process, we would obtain the findings of an independent person or persons. There is no great difficulty in acting in that way. That procedure would save the time of honourable senators. If the commissioner were able to sit without the necessity for honourable senators to sit also, the process would be preferable for that reason alone. Certainly, no harm will be done by honourable senators sitting with the commissioner, but that would be unnecessary because we want advice and a report on the facts-what I would call the findings of fact-by the independent person or persons who will conduct a formal hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Of course those hearings could be conducted by a Senate committee, without a commissioner. Senator Crowley —Yes. Senator DURACK —We believe, the Attorney-General believes, and I think Senator Crowley believes, in the desirability in these circumstances of having an independent judgment on this matter made by a person or persons of high standing and with great authority. I have no doubt that such a person or persons will be willing to perform their duty not only to the Parliament but also to the public of Australia. That is the obvious course to take. It will not and cannot derogate from our ultimate responsibility as senators to make a finding on misbehaviour in the light of the report we receive. That is the proper course to take. I commend that proposal to the Senate, if the Government is not prepared to assist in establishing the legislation by which the same independent authority can advise the Senate. The advice given by following that route will still, of course, require the ultimate decision of the Senate. That responsibility cannot be taken from us under the Constitution. Let us have this independent advice as soon as possible in order that we may better discharge that responsibility. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.28) —I enter this debate on the appropriate next step in the further consideration of and deliberation on the evidence proffered by Mr Briese to the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. His evidence amounted to an allegation that the judge had engaged in conduct that constituted the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, such as is dealt with by section 43 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. Naturally, I support the motion moved an hour ago by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) which states: That the Senate- (a) refer- (i) all evidence given before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, and (ii) all documentary or other material furnished to the Committee, relevant to the Briese allegation, to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration by him whether a prosecution should be brought against the judge . . .; It is important to recall what Government senators propose. It is a very straightforward proposition-that the proper course to follow is to exhaust the criminal prosecution option before considering any other approach. Our proposal does not preclude any other approach or pre-empt any other action by the Senate. Our proposal simply says that we should exhaust the criminal prosecution option. That step is justified by the nature and seriousness of the allegation that has been made by Mr Briese under oath before a parliamentary committee and by the fact that two Committee members felt that a prima facie case had been made out, while a third member, Senator Chipp, was not persuaded to the contrary. There was a conflict about the very serious allegation of conduct which would amount, if it were ever proved, to a criminal offence. Once that option was exhausted, of course Parliament would review the situation . The action of placing this matter in the hands of Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, would not in any way derogate from the Senate's ultimate responsibility under section 72 of the Constitution. That action would not preclude or prevent further parliamentary consideration of the matter; but we should not be denied the usefulness and propriety of that consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We must take account of the constitutional realities and practices that should prevail. At the same time, we should be conscious that not only must we act in accordance with what we gleam to be the proper constitutional processes but also that we are really engaged in moulding and creating those constitutional processes, given the novelty of the very serious situation that has arisen. We should be very cautious and conservative in that regard. A surprising feature of Australia's political life over the last decade is the fact that honourable senators opposite have been prepared from time to time to manipulate the Constitution for their own opportunistic political ends while senators on this side of the chamber have tried to conserve the true meaning of the Constitution. Given the fact that the repercussions of the action proposed by the Opposition could affect the future integrity and independence of the Federal judiciary, especially the High Court of Australia, and given the fact that its members are particularly vulnerable to political pressure because of their pre-eminent role in determining the constitutionality of Executive action and the law making that we undertake, it is important that we be most cautious in deciding the course of action to pursue in relation to allegations against a member of the Federal judiciary, particularly the High Court. Opposition senators would do well to note how the more responsible journalists in the community are moving in their considerations of these matters. A moderate and cautionary voice was raised by Geoffrey Barker last Saturday in his article in the Age headed 'Justice, politics and Murphy's little mate'. Mr Barker stated : . . . actions tending to diminish judicial independence, or casting doubts on the integrity of judges, ought not to be undertaken lightly. They are especially to be avoided in the fevered atmosphere that surrounds elections when politicians are jostling for issues and advantages. Speaking of the proposal to take consideration of Mr Briese's allegations further, Mr Barker said: This seems to me dangerous, unwarranted and futile. Dangerous because it is an instance of Opposition political pressure (reinforced by some newspapers) clouding the integrity of a prominent High Court judge, and therefore the integrity of Australia's highest judicial institution, on extremely tenuous grounds. Unwarranted because Mr Briese's uncorroborated and disputed evidence does not credibly establish any misbehaviour by Mr Justice Murphy, and would not credibly establish misbehaviour even if it was corroborated and undisputed. Futile because the judge's denial of the evidence means that a new inquiry would be essentially a fishing expedition on behalf of a beleaguered Opposition in search of an issue. I bring that moderate and sensible note into the discussion. The action in which Opposition senators have been partly engaged has been well exemplified by Petty' s cartoon on the same day. Petty shows various people gathered outside the Australian Establishment Club and the caption reads: Of course it's always been fundamental to our system here that Justice Murphy must not only be done, but be seen to be done. When the cartoonists of Australia, who of course are amongst the best in the world, start to take that line, Opposition senators should take it as a cautionary warning of the disrepute into which they are bringing themselves by pursuing this matter. Nevertheless, let us consider the proposition and the motion that I support, namely, that the materials should be handed to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Last night I listened intently to the debate when the motions were foreshadowed because I wanted to give them due weight. It seemed that some matters were causing concern to the Opposition. One involved a fear that, in allowing the matter to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Opposition would somehow be conceding that misbehaviour can be constituted only by misconduct relating to office or an offence against the law; that is, that misconduct or a reprehensible activity outside the duties of office or not amounting to an offence against the law can never amount to misbehaviour. The Opposition seems to be wary of sending the matter to the DPP for fear that this would undermine its position that misbehaviour can embrace conduct and activity wider than offences against the law. I do not see the situation that way. Although I find the Solicitor-General's opinion generally convincing, I do not find a need to decide on the exact range of activity that might constitute misbehaviour in any particular situation. I believe we should leave open the possibility that the Opposition in this regard is expressing the better view. The Senate Committee, in paragraph 79 of its report, stated: The Committee did not need to conclude that misbehaviour unrelated to the duties of office must always be constituted by an offence against the general law. However, the committee agreed that since the allegation of Mr Briese, if sustained by the evidence, was that the judge had engaged in conduct which constituted the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice . . . its proper inquiry was whether the evidence established the commission of such an offence. I believe that, given the nature of that allegation and given the fact that if it were sustained by the evidence it would amount to such an offence, it is very proper that the Director of Public Prosecutions review the materials. Related to this is the fact that some have said that they have misgivings because the Director of Public Prosecutions, in assembling the evidence to determine whether prosecutions should be launched, will have in mind the standard of proof applicable to criminal proceedings. That is, he will be looking at the evidence to see whether the uttering of certain words took place and whether their uttering was accompanied by an intent to influence the outcome of committal proceedings, beyond reasonable doubt. Are the uttering of those words and the existence of that state of mind able to be established beyond reasonable doubt? Why are people fearful of that particular standard of proof being used to assess and measure the evidence? I refer to an article in the Sunday Telegraph by Laurie Oakes. I need to quote it in full because I find it irresistible in its compelling logic. He states: There is reason for concern over the treatment of Mr Justice Murphy in the continuing affair of the so-called Age tapes. The leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, rejected the idea of referring the issue to the DPP . . . for what seems a very strange reason. Mr Temby, the senator said, would have to be able to prove ''beyond reasonable doubt'' that the judge had committed an offence before any action could be taken . A Senate committee, or a parliamentary commissioner appointed by the Senate, in contrast, would merely have to find ''on the balance of probabilities'' that Mr Justice Murphy had done something wrong . . . Laurie Oakes also stated: I find extremely disturbing the possibility that Mr Justice Murphy might have his career-and his life-destroyed on the basis of ''the balance of probabilities ''. What the judge has been accused of in the evidence of N.S.W. Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Clarrie Briese, is a criminal offence. The allegation is that he attempted to interfere with the administration of justice by a magistrate. If the charge was heard in a court of law proof beyond reasonable doubt would be required. Why should a lesser standard of proof be required if the Senate takes it upon itself to be investigator, prosecutor and judge? I find that a very compelling comment by Laurie Oakes, in relation to this misgiving. Senator Missen —Pretty ignorant comment. Senator TATE —The honourable senator may call him ignorant but I believe that he speaks for the common sense and common decency of our common law tradition in dealing with the proof of matters which are alleged and which, if proved, would amount to a criminal offence. If the honourable senator wants to abandon the common law and its traditions in that regard, of course he is quite entitled to do so. The Senate can adopt whatever standard of proof it wants. We know that, but if the honourable senator is advocating a lesser standard of proof no doubt he will be able to argue for that. However, I believe that Laurie Oakes is speaking for common sense in that regard. There was the fear that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be embroiled in a political controversy. I have always understood that it was the function of the DPP precisely in an area of political controversy, subject to all the heated hysteria of the to and fro that goes on in the chamber, particularly prior to an election, to make decisions of an independent character, an impartial character, quite removed from political influence. Senator Jack Evans —But not on behalf of this Senate. Senator TATE —He is not being asked to do it on behalf of the Senate; he is being asked to do it as the Director of Public Prosecutions and we, of course, will then consider his report. I have never said that it precludes further deliberation by this chamber. I am very pleased in relation to this matter, which is a serious allegation of an offence, that the Attorney-General has removed himself, has forgone his right as Attorney-General to press a prosecution. I do believe it is a highly political area. Senator Harradine —He is an officer of the Executive, is he not? Senator TATE —This is said continuously. It was said by Senator Haines last night and by Senator Durack again today that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer of the Executive. It is true he is appointed by the Executive but to slide from that proposition, which is perfectly proper, to the proposition that he is a political appointee and subject to political influence, is quite wrong. When the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 was passed by this Parliament in November 1983-late last year-Senator Durack had this to say: The same thinking behind the establishment of the special prosecutors has led to this further step- setting up the DPP- of having the general prosecutions of Commonwealth related crime in the hands of a specialist, a person who is independent and seen to be independent of the Attorney-General and of any political influence. He went on: This Bill preserves that very high function of the Attorney-General. It enables him to conduct prosecutions in his own right, although, obviously, that would be done only in very rare cases, because he would have this major, prestigious and expert Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to carry on the work of prosecutions for the Commonwealth in the great majority of cases. A major element in setting up the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to remove these matters from decision making by the Attorney-General and to put them into an impartial, independent atmosphere. Senator Durack —Day to day, but he is still subject to the direction of the Attorney-General. Senator TATE —The honourable senator knows very well that if there were to be a direction from the Attorney-General in relation to this matter it would have to be tabled and subject to the full scrutiny of the Senate and the Parliament. The honourable senator has not mentioned that so far, and there is no question of any direction in this case. Having disposed of those misguided fears about the referral of this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, I now turn to elaborate on the view that such a reference, in the context of the Select Committee's prior activity, is a better course to follow constitutionally when compared with the proposal put forward by those on the opposite side of the chamber that Parliament hand over its powers to conduct further inquiries to a parliamentary commissioner of some type. I must say that when I first heard this proposition I was astounded. It is an attempt to revive what is now perceived in England to be a nineteenth century anachronism of the United Kingdom Parliament. It has not been used this century by the Westminster Parliament, whose privileges, powers and traditions we inherit and claim to find some guidance from. Senator Missen —What about Canada? Senator TATE —I am talking about the Parliament from which we draw our parliamentary privileges, powers and principles of action. Once again we are faced with a situation in which, as it seems to me, the Australian Labor Party is acting, in the proper sense of the word, in the conservative tradition by trying to conserve the proper power of the Parliament and certainly not transferring it to an outside person or body. As I have said, the course of action proposed by those on the opposite side has not commended itself this century to the Westminster Parliament faced with all the crises and all the problems that have confronted the United Kingdom over the past 80 years. It has not found it necessary to have recourse to such an odd transfer of its powers to another body. There are very good reasons why that should not occur. I do not need to elaborate on them as the Attorney-General dealt fully with the legal problems facing witnesses and the Commissioner. I would be most unsafe to assume that the subjects of freedom of speech, privileged situations and even the administering of oaths could be handed to an outside body. The objection to handing over such powers is not a narrow, legal one; it is doubly fortified by the separation of powers which is part of our tradition in Australia and which is different therefore to the United Kingdom situation. Judicial power is vested in the Federal judges, Executive power is vested in the Executive and parliamentary power is vested in the Parliament, and it cannot be disposed of or delegated elsewhere. I have heard nothing today-this has been reinforced by Senator Durack -to suggest that any determination by such a commissioner or commissioners would have any conclusive or binding effect on this chamber. Debate interrupted. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I have to inform the Senate that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, has been temporarily detained. In those circumstances I ask that, until his arrival, any question that would normally be directed to him be directed to me-if the questioner has that degree of confidence. NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer the Attorney-General to his answer to me yesterday in which he revealed that Mr Commissioner Costigan has written to the Government saying that the transition process from his inquiry to the National Crime Authority will fail. Given Mr Costigan's reputation as a pioneer in the battle against organised crime and the concern which his fears of an ineffective hand-over will arouse in the community, will the Minister now table relevant correspondence from Mr Costigan and from Mr Justice Stewart concerning this matter so that all the facts can be made known? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have discussed this matter with the Special Minister of State. Neither of us sees any reason why the correspondence in question should not be tabled, but we want to check with the parties concerned before we put the matter on the public record. We should be in a position to do that by tomorrow. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. What is the most up to date information on the number of Australians receiving the unemployment benefit? What has been the reduction in the number of unemployment beneficiaries as compared with the number at the same time last year, both for Australia as a whole and for the individual States? Senator Messner —Don't you get the ABS surveys? Senator MAGUIRE —They are not published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Senator. How does the latest figure compare with the 1984 Budget estimate of the average number of persons receiving the benefit for the current financial year? Senator Messner —Why don't you put it on notice? Senator GRIMES —Oh, do you not want to hear about it, Senator? In the year to the end of August 1984, the number of unemployment beneficiaries has declined by 51, 552 to a total of 570,551. Senator Boswell —How many were in the CEP? Senator GRIMES —This represents a decline of 8.3 per cent in the past year. This decline in the number of unemployment beneficiaries began earlier this year and has continued throughout 1984. It represents the success of the Government's policies in terms of achieving non-inflationary economic growth, and the Government's policy, Senator Boswell, of providing jobs for those people who need them, whether they are within the community employment program or anywhere else. Over the last month, there has been a fall of about 9,800 in the number of unemployment beneficiaries. On a State by State basis, the fall in the number of unemployment beneficiaries is as follows: New South Wales, down by 9.38 per cent, or 22,490; Victoria, down by 13.9 per cent, a decline of 18,525; Queensland, down by 1.2 per cent, a decline of 1,221; South Australia, down by 9.6 per cent, a decline of 5,800; Western Australia, down by 2.65 per cent, a decline of 1,500; Tasmania, down by 3.03 per cent, a decline of 613; Australian Capital Territory, down by 26.12 per cent, a decline of 1,343; and there has been a small increase of 0.5 per cent, or 39, in the Northern Territory. Of course, the number of unemployment beneficiaries is still too high. The Government is confident, however, that its economic policies will result in a continuing decline. The estimated average in the 1984 Budget, as Senator Maguire knows, is 570,000. It is down to about that average now; but we expect increases over the Christmas and New Year period. Last year the average came down considerably, and expenditure on the unemployment benefit was some $300m below what we expected it to be. All I can say is that this indicates that our policies have certainly been more successful in reducing unemployment than the discredited economic policies of the previous Government. During the last year or so of the Fraser Government, the numbers increased, for example, from 304,700 to 562,600 in the 12 months ending December 1982. This was an increase of 85 per cent, or 257,900, in the number of unemployment beneficiaries in that one year. There has been a complete reversal, and we are sure that our policies will mean a continuing decline in this area in the future. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General, in both his own capacity and as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. I refer the Attorney to his statement in the Senate on 17 November last year when he said that he expected that there would be a four-month to five-month transition period from the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority. Is it a fact that the Government finally settled on a three-month transition period and that this period has proved inadequate? Will the Government make some special arrangement with Mr Costigan, after the presentation of his report at the end of this month, to ensure that there is a proper completion of the hand-over process , including adequate briefing of members of the National Crime Authority? Senator GARETH EVANS —The original estimate of four months as the transition period was based on circumstances as they existed in November 1983-namely, that the National Crime Authority legislation would be passed by late November or early December last year. That timetable did not eventuate. Instead, the Senate referred the legislation, as we can all recall, in November, to a Senate committee which did not then report until 1 May this year. With these changed circumstances, the Special Minister of State discussed the matter with Mr Costigan in March this year, and the agreement was reached between them that following the establishment of the Authority by 1 July, there would be a one- month transition period between the Royal Commission and the Authority, with the Commission then writing its final report during August and September. That remains the position. As to some possible extension of the transition period, Mr Costigan recently wrote to the Prime Minister advising that he may need to seek an extension of perhaps two weeks to enable him to complete his final report. Mr Costigan added that he would be able to advise further next week on that, and the Government will consider any requests that it receives for such an extension to enable the Commission to complete its report. As to the question of a further extension of time for the transition process as such, I believe that the matters that I put on record yesterday in that respect sufficiently answer that point. In relation to that matter, perhaps I may correct one small error that I made in part of that answer yesterday to Senator Chaney concerning Mr Justice Stewart 's travel arrangements. I advised, on a misreading of the paper in front of me, that the judge went direct from Hong Kong to the United States of America. In fact, he returned to Australia from Hong Kong on 3 September, and he is going back to the United States in about two weeks' time. But the point still holds that he will be away for only two weeks on that trip, and that is the only remaining overseas visit that is proposed this year. Senator ZAKHAROV —I address my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. What would be the effect of the abolition of the Economic Planning Advisory Council, as has been recommended recently by the Opposition? What part has EPAC played in the management of the Australian economy, which has now achieved the highest rate of growth of any member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Senator BUTTON —I suppose that is a difficult question to answer because these things are, in a sense, intangible and unquantifiable. We have seen the Opposition proposal about the abolition of EPAC and a number of other bodies in that somewhat flamboyant statement which was issued and which was described as the Opposition's industry policy. In that statement EPAC was singled out for abolition as were a number of other government advisory bodies. EPAC is an important part of the Government's consultative arrangements on the economy. Members of EPAC have been subject to some criticism. Nonetheless the Government regards it as a very worthwhile body in terms of consultation on matters relating to the economy. The contribution made by EPAC in recent months has been considerable. The Government expects that it will be more so as EPAC staffing arrangements are finalised and questions such as a variety of taxation matters which have to be addressed come up for consideration, and the views of the business community, the trade union community and others will necessarily be considered in the context of any such review. I remind the Senate that Mr Coates, a representative of employer organisations on EPAC, has, in spite of a degree of personal criticism about his involvement in that body, said that he regards it as a very worthwhile organisation. Mr Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions said the same sort of thing; and Mr Gibbons of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia has said that he would not vote for any government that would abolish a body such as EPAC, because of the capacity of that body to enable people representative of organisations such as his to make a contribution to the general economic welfare of this country. The answer to the honourable senator's question, in summary, is that EPAC has made a contribution, it has been widely recognised, and the Government expects it to make an even more significant contribution in the years ahead. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of a former distinguished President of the Senate, Sir Harold Young, and Lady Young. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to Sir Harold and Lady Young a warm and friendly welcome on their return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHIPP —I ask a question either of the Leader of the Government in the Senate or of the Attorney-General, whichever is appropriate, concerning a question I asked on 21 August about the alleged downgrading of surveillance on one, Abraham Saffron. Ministers will remember that I wrote them a letter two weeks before the Budget session commenced saying that I would ask the question, which is now six weeks ago. The question was as follows: Is it correct, as reported, that in 1974-75 the then Attorney-General gave instructions to Department of Customs and Excise officials to downgrade their surveillance and inspection of Sydney businessman Abraham Saffron? Will the Attorney ascertain what were the Department's reasons, if any, for its reported high level of surveillance and inspection before the alleged intervention by the then Attorney-General? Will he also ascertain what was the reaction of the Department to the alleged instructions by the then Attorney-General? What were the reasons of the then Attorney-General for not accepting the Department's contrary advice, if any such advice was offered? Will the Attorney arrange to have tabled all documents relating to this matter, including communication between the then Attorney-General and the Department of Customs and Excise? In his reply the Attorney said: Answers will be supplied as soon as possible, hopefully later this week. In the Minister's research has he come across a subsequent request from New Scotland Yard concerning the behaviour of Abraham Saffron? As it is now a further two weeks since that date, I ask the Minister: Is he now able to supply answers to my questions? If he is not able to do so, I ask him respectfully why it is taking so long to provide this information. Senator BUTTON —That is a very long question, part of which, as Senator Chipp has explained, is quite familiar to me. The second part, of course, is a later addition. Senator Chipp —About Scotland Yard? Senator BUTTON —Yes. Senator Chipp —I have got the request. Senator BUTTON —It might expedite the process if Senator Chipp gave it to me. I say, by way of preface, that Senator Chipp said he wrote to Ministers about this matter. I have no recollection of his writing to me. Senator Chipp —I wrote to the Attorney. Senator BUTTON —I want to make that correction, because I do not believe he did write to me and I do not believe he wrote to the Attorney-General as far in advance of the question being asked as he said. This matter has been investigated by officers of various departments. That investigation is now almost complete. I undertake to provide Senator Chipp with an answer to his question this week. I think it is better, as the Attorney-General explained in an answer he gave to Senator Chipp a couple of weeks ago, that the matter is properly investigated, having regard to the fact that there are files in a number of departments, than that it be handled quickly and an inadequate answer supplied. I undertake to give an answer to that question and the supplementary part of the question insofar as it is possible this week. Senator COATES —I ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in that capacity, and also as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, whether she is aware of the Tasmanian Government's proposal to build a residence for technical college students in the grounds of the Southern Teachers Centre in Hobart-a building and grounds which are on the register of the National Estate? Further, is she aware of the outcry from so many people against this proposal? As Federal Government approval of funds will be necessary , will she ensure that she exercises her responsibility under the Heritage Commission Act not to take avoidable action which would affect the building and its surrounds, since it is not essential that the proposed residential block be on this very attractive site? Senator RYAN —The Technical and Further Education Council of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has been informed by the Tasmanian Government of its proposal to construct a student residence for Hobart Technical College. The Tasmanian Government has indicated that it will be seeking Commonwealth funds under the TAFE capital grants program for the building of the residence not earlier than 1986, though it is seeking design funds of $100,000 in 1985. On behalf of the Commonwealth, the TAFE Council assesses proposed projects to ensure that they are educationally sound, economically efficient and consistent with Commonwealth objectives for the development of TAFE. The Commonwealth has funded the construction of student residences in the past, including one in Burnie and one in Launceston, Tasmania, because they improve access for country students. Questions of environment and aesthetics are essentially matters for the State governments, which are responsible for the design and construction of TAFE colleges. The TAFE Council, which has been contacted by the Australian Heritage Commission, will take steps to ensure that any necessary consultation takes place. It is therefore suggested that in the first instance those making the representations take up the question of siting with the Tasmanian Government . Clearly, it is a matter in which the Commonwealth has a concern and we will monitor the situation. Senator MISSEN —I address a question to the Attorney-General. I remind him of the answer he gave me on 22 August concerning the appointment of the joint parliamentary committee required by the Crime Authority Act to monitor the functions of the National Crime Authority. The Attorney will recall he said that he would ensure that the committee was established this week. I ask: First, how many members and senators will form that committee and in what proportions are parties proposed to be represented? Secondly, did the Labor Caucus at its meeting yesterday consider membership of the committee? Thirdly, when will the Opposition be given the opportunity to select its representatives? Fourthly, will the Attorney meet his deadline, or will the establishment of the committee be further delayed in line with the Hawke Government's half-hearted response to the problems of tackling organised crime? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sorry that I am not in a position to give right now the answer Senator Missen wants to that question. We certainly did elect our representatives on the committee at the Caucus meeting yesterday. Senator Chaney —We have been unable to find out the composition of the committee . Senator GARETH EVANS —I have indicated that. I am sorry about that. I had thought there was some communication with the other side. That is not a matter with which I am any longer involved. I will now follow it up and hope to give an answer before the end of Question Time. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question of the Attorney-General. How many Labor members were elected from each chamber so that we can perhaps do our sums? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will give the honourable senator that information by the end of Question Time. I have had one or two other things on my mind. I cannot remember precisely how many were involved. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Australian Government express its concern to the French Government over the inadequacy of the investigations carried out in October 1983 into the effects of French atomic tests at Muroroa Atoll? Will the Australian Government emphasise that that investigation team had no medical expertise and did not carry out any independent study of the effects of radioactive fallout on the health of the 166,000 inhabitants of the islands of French Polynesia? Will the Australian Government strongly recommend that an independent team of medical and biological experts be given full access to all areas of Muroroa Atoll and be empowered to study the health effects of radioactive fallout on the Polynesian Islanders? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has repeatedly stated its strong opposition to and condemnation of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific and will continue to do so on each occasion a nuclear test takes place and on other appropriate occasions. The report of the group of scientists from New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea that visited Muroroa Atoll in October 1983 was released on 9 July 1984. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said at the time, the report's conclusions on health and environment aspects did not alter the Government's strong opposition to French nuclear testing which is based primarily on non-proliferation grounds. French nuclear testing, including the report on Muroroa Atoll, was considered at the recent meeting of the South Pacific Forum in Tuvalu. Forum members reiterated their strong opposition to French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. At Western Samoa's suggestion it was agreed that Forum governments would continue to protest individually and collectively to France. The Forum meeting welcomed the declaration made on 6 July 1984 by the Permanent Commission of the South Pacific representing Chile, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru, opposing French nuclear testing at Muroroa Atoll. The forum also agreed to an Australian proposal-it will be well recalled-for a nuclear-free South Pacific zone, which, among other things, of course, aims to ban all nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The Government believes that there should be an end to all forms of nuclear explosions by all states in all environments. For that reason it has been active in support of a comprehensive test ban treaty. To the extent that I have not picked up, I think, all the precise nuances of Senator McIntosh's question, I will refer it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek answers on anything that remains outstanding. Senator LAJOVIC —Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce inform the Senate of the total cost to the Australian wheat and coal export industries of the rail strike in New South Wales which occurred during the last 10 days? How will the Government compensate the respective industries for loss of income and possibly future export opportunities? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the first part of the question is no, I am quite unable to inform the Senate as to the total cost. However, if Senator Lajovic wants me to try to find out I will, but I doubt whether even then I would obtain very reliable information on the matter because such things are very difficult to quantify. The second part of the question asked how the Government would compensate those adversely affected by the strike. The answer is that the Government will not compensate people adversely affected by the strike. It has never been seen to be a role of government to provide that sort of compensation- - Senator Withers —Not after the accord. Senator BUTTON —Or before the accord. It has never been the role of government to compensate people in those circumstances to my knowledge and it will not be from now on. In any event, I suppose that if the question of compensation occurred it might be more appropriately addressed in the New South Wales Parliament rather than in here. Senator REYNOLDS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs . A number of people have expressed their appreciation of home help services provided to them by the Department's home help scheme. However, many are concerned that the scheme will end at the end of October this year and believe that without the support of the scheme they may not be able to remain in the community and will have to enter nursing homes or other institutions. Can the Minister give me an assurance that this valuable scheme will be continued? Senator GIETZELT —The Government began a number of pilot schemes in respect of home help for veterans in February of this year; one in each of the respective States. The success of the scheme has been proven by the number of demands that have been made upon the Government by veterans' organisations and by individuals who have been assisted by it. The scheme was designed to fill some of the gaps which existed in State and other community agencies that provide services to aged persons generally. The purpose of our scheme was largely to keep veterans in their own homes rather than having them institutionalised. That approach, of course, has proven to be a very compassionate approach to the aging veteran community as well as being very cost-effective. The consequence of that is that the Government has been pressed to continue the scheme. It is true that the scheme was designed to operate on a six-month only basis. However, the success of the scheme convinced the Government to provide in the Budget an additional $1 .9m for the scheme to be made permanent in 1985. However, there is a gap in terms of funding for the scheme from November until February next year, when the new scheme is to be placed on a permanent basis. As a consequence, I have written to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, indicating that the scheme, having been as successful as it was and having proven to be cost-effective, should be continued. I am confident that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations will give me the additional $600,000 to enable the scheme to move from the pilot scheme stage to being a permanent scheme which will be financed year by year by the Budget and which will extend beyond the capital cities where it is currently based to provide the sort of home help facilities that will keep people in their homes and out of institutions. It will therefore meet a very important community need as far as veterans are concerned. Senator COLLARD —Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce going to grant by-law exemption to imported grain harvesters of 1,257 millimetre drum width and over, or 100 kilowatt engine power, or will the present Customs duty be replaced by a bounty to assist local manufacturers of harvesters, thus ensuring that local manufacturers are assisted by all taxpayers, rather than merely by the farmers? Senator BUTTON —The current industry assistance regime in respect of harvesters was put in place following an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry and recommendations from the IAC to the Government. As Senator Collard well knows, a number of rural interests concerned with various aspects of grain harvesting made representations to the IAC regarding the matter, both during the preliminary and the final hearings of the IAC inquiry. The Government acted in response to the IAC inquiry by accepting the recommendations in the IAC report. Since that time there has been-I use the words inoffensively-a continuing campaign to have the IAC's recommendations changed and a regime of industry assistance put in place following that decision. During the course of that campaign I met with grain grower organisations on a number of occasions and have continued to keep the question under review. That situation still exists. The present position is quite clear. If any change can possibly be made or is to be made it will be announced at an appropriate time. Senator ROBERTSON —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Special Minister of State been drawn to recent claims by members of the Opposition that the Government this year has cut spending on coastal surveillance in northern Australia by 36 per cent? What is the true position of government spending on coastal surveillance, and is there any justification for the Opposition's claims ? Senator GARETH EVANS —The claims of the Opposition are quite unfounded in this respect, as so often elsewhere. In fact, there has been a slight increase in spending this year on coastal surveillance. The Budget estimate for 1984-85 is $ 21.2m, compared to the 1983-84 program expenditure of $20.7m. Following a reappraisal of needs by the Department of Health, there has been a reduction in flying hours under the civil air contracts for littoral aerial surveillance for quarantine purposes. These reductions were supported by the health officials working for the governments of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. These cost savings for some of the flying time have been more than offset by the expenditure incurred by transferring co-ordination and control of coastal surveillance to the Australian Federal Police. This move, resulting from a ministerial review of coastal surveillance, has greatly enhanced the effectiveness and efficiency of coastal surveillance in Australia. The Government is finalising details for placing three coastal protection units in northern Australia. One will be in Darwin, and the sites for the units to be located in north Queensland and northern Western Australia are the subject of negotiations between the Federal and State governments concerned. Announcements of these locations are expected soon. Senator MacGIBBON —Is the Attorney- General aware that the Prime Minister in his statement of Friday, 24 August, regarding Letters Patent Relating to the Office of Governor-General made certain claims? The Prime Minister stated: the title Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth is not supported by the Constitution. In the next paragraph, in reference to the same matter, the Prime Minister said: . . . in any event does not create the status of Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth. However, section 68 of the Constitution, which takes precedence over other considerations, states unambiguously: The commander in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. I ask: On what grounds has the Prime Minister chosen to ignore the provisions of section 68 of the Constitution? Who does the Labor Government designate as the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian defence forces? What consultations were held with the Governor-General and what were his views on the matter? Finally, what other section of the Constitution does the Prime Minister intend to ignore in his quest for an Australian republic? Senator GARETH EVANS —What the Prime Minister said in his statement, in relevant part, was as follows: While section 68 vests a function of command in the Governor-General in relation to the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth, that function may only be exercised on advice, and in any event does not create the status of Commander-in-Chief in and over the Commonwealth. While the new style and title of the Governor-General will therefore not include such a reference, the Governor-General will continue to use the title adopted in recent years of ' Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force' for ceremonial purposes connected with the armed forces. Just to state the terms of the Prime Minister's announcement makes it clear that there is no substance whatsoever in the sorts of claims or suggestions that have been made by Senator MacGibbon in his question. As to the question of consultation with the Governor-General in the drafting of the new Letters Patent , it is my belief that consultation was, as one would expect it to be, extensive and complete. I will seek further information on that aspect of the question and any other part of it that the honourable senator may feel has been insufficiently answered by my reply. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney-General answer the central question, that is, whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian defence forces is, as the Constitution provides, the Governor- General of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —The question is based, as so often with Senator MacGibbon, on a totally false premise. The Constitution does not provide that the Governor- General is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Senator COLSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the findings of a recent Queensland Government inquiry into the future of the West Moreton coalfields. In particular, I refer to the findings that retrenchments from those coalfields are imminent unless the Queensland Electricity Generating Board continues to purchase West Moreton coal for the Swanbank power station. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the findings of that report, whether he is concerned about those findings, and whether he believes that any action could be taken to alleviate the projected levels of job loss in the West Moreton fields? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to the findings and indeed, following action initiated by Mr Hayden, I have had two meetings with representatives of the mining unions. I have also contacted the Queensland Minister by telephone and am in the process now of preparing a letter for dispatch to the Queensland Minister. The principle finding of the report, as Senator Colston said, was that it appears likely that the only way in which significant retrenchments can be avoided is if the Queensland Electricity Generating Board purchases a greater quantity of coal from West Moreton than it presently plans to do. Of course, there has been a long term plan by the QEGB to phase out the Swanbank power station, which has been the traditional market for West Moreton coal. However, there is an export sector. I have orally approached the Queensland Minister, and will do so in writing shortly, asking him to see whether the Queensland Government will consider doing three things. Firstly, will it consider not proceeding with the planned increase in December this year of $1 a tonne in the coal loading charge for West Moreton coal exported through Brisbane? Secondly, will it consider making some adjustment of the rail freight, further to the small adjustment recently made? Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, if the export market is to be developed more fully, there is the question of royalties. A royalty of 4 per cent is imposed on deep coal mines in the Ipswich area and a 5 per cent royalty is imposed on open cut mines. At least some, and I believe most, of that royalty does not, however, accrue to the Queensland Government but to private land holders. Given that in that instance at least there would be no loss of government revenue if the royalty was waived, and it is not insignificant, being of the order of $2 a tonne, which could well make a difference between West Moreton coal being priced competitively on the export market and not being priced competitively, it seems to me that action waiving that royalty would be far more defensible on the part of the Queensland Government than allowing retrenchments of miners in that area to proceed unnecessarily. The royalty recipients, who I stress are mostly private people and not governments, if the mines close will not get the royalty anyway. I have had a number of representations from Mr Hayden. As I see it, there is little the Commonwealth Government can do other than to make representations to the Queensland Government. That indeed is what we have done. Senator WALTERS —My question, which is addressed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women, is in three parts. While I support the assistance given in the Budget to disadvantaged women, I ask: Why has the Government again belittled women who choose a full time homemaker's role to one in the paid work force by refusing to increase the dependent spouse rebate? Is the Government aware that the tax disadvantage to a single income family on $26, 000 a year, with a dependent spouse and children, compared to a two income family on the same total income, has grown from $26.70 a week more for the single income family as compared to the two income family to $34.30 more? Since the Government has refused to increase the rebate in its two Budgets, I ask whether it is conditioning the public to a phasing out of the rebate after the election, in accordance with the wishes of the radical feminists, including those on the Government benches. Senator RYAN —Senator Walters's first two questions really seem to come down to why was the Budget in the form it was in and not in some other form. I suggest that Senator Walters direct her attention to the special document that I tabled in the Senate on Budget night called 'Women's Budget Program', which contains a very detailed account of all of the budgetary measures which will have direct benefit to women. That includes women who are full time housewives, women who are mothers, aged women and women who are recipients of a wide variety of government services. The women's Budget document is a most impressive document and contains a great deal of detail which it was not possible to put into the main speech but which has been met with universal acclaim from women's organisations. If Senator Walters were to read that document she would have a much clearer idea of what a constructive and positive Budget the 1984 Budget was for women, whatever their circumstances. As to the question of the rebate and other taxation matters affecting women, it is the intention of the Government, as has been announced, to investigate the taxation system with a view to making it more equitable and of course increased equity in the taxation system will have direct benefit to women who, in many circumstances, are disadvantaged by the present taxation system. What particular reforms our Government will make to the taxation system is a matter on which Senator Walters will have to await a Government decision. Senator WALTERS —I ask a supplementary question. Senator Ryan did not answer any of the questions that I asked her. She said that- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask the supplementary question . Senator WALTERS —Mr President, as you are well aware, I am attempting to ask it. The PRESIDENT —Will you ask the question and not make a statement. Senator WALTERS —I ask the Minister: Is the Government aware of that particular disadvantage? Is the Government intending to phase out the dependent spouse rebate? Why is it that in the interim of redoing the whole of the taxation system it has not increased the dependent spouse rebate? Those three questions have not been answered. Senator RYAN —I refer Senator Walters to the answer I gave to her previous question. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. If it is possible to calculate the losses caused by the New South Wales rail strike, as has been suggested by Senator Lajovic, could the Minister indicate the benefits the community has received owing to the lowest level of industrial disputation since 1969? Senator BUTTON —As I said in my answer to Senator Lajovic, these things are not easily quantifiable or calculable. But the benefits which this country has received from the best industrial relations environment since 1969 in terms of industrial stoppages are widely recognised in the business community and in industry generally. If I might make a point, Senator Lajovic's question, which would normally in the period of the Fraser Government have been a very dull question-nobody would have been particularly interested in it-attained a certain poignancy and interest today because it is the first time that a question like that has been asked in this place in the last 12 months or so. The reason is that it is a most unusual experience for a strike of that duration and that impact to have occurred in this country since this Government came to power. Senator Chaney —Tell the miners in Tasmania about that. Senator BUTTON —All sorts of excited interjections are coming from people who are seeking to find industrial unrest in the community. That could go on like the pea and thimble trick ad infinitum. But in that process what are being ignored are the statistics and the realities of the situation which lend point to Senator Lajovic's question. This Government is concerned to redress many of the factors which rendered this country's industries uncompetitive in both international markets and Australian markets over a number of years. Of course the level of industrial disruption which existed in this country was one of those factors. We will persist in our task of trying to see that in this country we never regress to the level of industrial disruption that we endured in 1981 and 1982 under the Fraser Government. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I note that a previous question and answer related to northern surveillance and also I understand that the Budget Papers show a reduction in coastal surveillance in the portfolios of Health, Primary Industry and Home Affairs and Environment. In view of the recent statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, that he believed that mystery aircraft may be running drugs over Timor in the direction of Australia and in view of the extreme vulnerability of northern Australia by virtue of its geographical position, will the Minister undertake to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to allow for the normal training and operational flying in the north of Royal Australian Air Force air-crews, whether of fighter, bomber or surveillance aircraft? Will the Minister also ensure that there are no cutbacks in flying time allocated for coastal surveillance operations? I have in mind the movement of illegal immigrants, drug running and the danger of introducing exotic diseases into Australian herds. Will the Minister say whether action will be taken to implement 24-hour coastal surveillance operation? Will this come about? Once again, having in mind a previous question and answer and noting the funding of the Australian Federal Police, what is its exact role in the overall operation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hope this briefing note addresses itself to the particular speech we have just heard. If it does not, I will do my best to supplement it later on. The figures mentioned by the honourable senator in the Budget are in respect of only one aspect of the total coastal surveillance program. There has been a reduction in the number of flying hours under the civil contracts for coastal surveillance following, as I think I said earlier, a reappraisal by the Department of Health of its requirements for littoral aerial surveillance for quarantine purposes. Senator Peter Baume —You won't become the member for Jagajaga. Senator GARETH EVANS —There are some people I am going to miss less than others. This has resulted in reduced expenditure on this aspect of coastal surveillance. The reappraisal by the Department of Health meant that the contractor had the capacity to perform other aerial surveillance within the terms of the existing contracts which run to 31 March 1986. The patrols of the Great Barrier Reef were capable of being accomplished within this framework at a considerable saving because the Commonwealth was already legally obligated to pay the standing charges for the excess aircraft and the additional charge was for actual flying time only. In overall terms, there has been a slight reduction in the cost of coastal surveillance this financial year. It represents 3.5 per cent of the total cost of the coastal surveillance program budget of $21.2m, a figure I mentioned earlier. Mr Speaker-Mr President, the Government is cognisant of the need for an effective coastal surveillance regime. Senator Lajovic —You are still in the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to table this document. It is all good practice . The PRESIDENT —Will the honourable member come to order! Senator GARETH EVANS —This has been demonstrated by the Government's initiative in having the Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence review Australia's practical coastal protection and surveillance arrangements. The Minister's report was tabled earlier this year. This is a long boring answer to yet another long boring question; I am sorry. Following consideration of the Minister's report, the Government established the coastal protection unit within the Australian Federal Police with responsibility for the direction and co-ordination of Australia's coastal surveillance response and enforcement. This is a major step forward, I hope it will be appreciated, because previous arrangements did not vest overall responsibility in one organisation. The unit will have three regional co-ordination centres: One in Darwin, one in north Queensland and one in the north-west of Western Australia. With respect to the last two, the views of the respective State governments have been sought as to their location, as I previously said. Another major initiative is the establishment of the Commonwealth-State Standing Advisory Committee on Coastal Protection and Surveillance. It will enable senior officers of respective governments to consider appropriate aspects of Australia's coastal protection and surveillance arrangements. That Committee will hold its inaugural meeting on 4 October 1984. The civil flying contracts-to pick up the point about the RAAF-are but one part of the overall system which includes the use of RAAF P3 Orion aircraft for surveillance of the Australian fishing zone, Royal Australian Navy patrol boats for surveillance and response action off-shore and civil surveillance of the fishing zone. There has been no reduction in the activities of the Defence force resources. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister please investigate that part of my question where I asked him to ensure that training and flying times of the RAAF in the northern areas are not cut back? If the Minister looks into that situation he will find there are cutbacks in operational and training flying. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I have just said, I am advised that there has been no reduction in the activities of Defence Force resources but I will have that proposition checked and give the honourable senator such further information as may be relevant. Senator CHILDS —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the tax reductions in the Budget and to criticisms made of those tax cuts by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, who said: The Liberal tax policy is very different . . . Has the Minister been able to compare this Budget's tax cut with any tax policy of the Liberal Party of Australia? Can he confirm Mr Peacock's claims? Senator WALSH —Senator Childs asked me whether I could compare the Budget tax cuts with the Liberal Party tax policy. The answer is no; I cannot compare it because there is no policy. If indeed a Liberal tax policy ever appears, it will be difficult to tell whether it is Mr Peacock's policy or Mr Howard's policy, since Mr Peacock's policy, for example, is to abolish the tax on wine and Mr Howard's policy is to continue it, or whether it will be the policy of the National Party, formerly the Country Party, according to its spokesman in the House of Representatives who says that it will have a special and better policy on primary industry than the Liberal Party, just as it will have a special and, in its view, better policy on immigration. Even if an Opposition policy on taxation should ever appear it will be extremely difficult to tell whether it ought to be taken seriously depending upon the source from which it comes, whether it comes from the Leader of the Opposition, from the former discredited Treasurer, or from the National Party. The assertions which are being made by various members of the Opposition, as distinct from any tax policy that they may have, about this present Government and this present Budget imposing the highest level of tax on pay-as-you-earn taxpayers and all that sort of thing than has ever been imposed are quite false. If one looks at 1981-82, the second last year of the discredited former Government, one sees that net PAYE receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product were 11.7 per cent. In 1982-83, the last year of the discredited former Government, net PAYE tax receipts were 11 1/2 per cent of GDP and the estimate for 1984-85 is 10.8 per cent, which is significantly lower than in either of the last two years of the discredited former Government. We do get some other hints about the possible taxation policies which could be pursued by a coalition government, should there ever be another one. For example , Mr Howard has said that there will be a consumption tax under a coalition government. I would be grateful for information from Mr Howard or anyone else nominating the items upon which a consumption tax would be imposed since the only addition to a consumption tax which this Government has applied is the sales tax on wine. Although Mr Howard says he will keep it his Leader, Mr Peacock, says a Liberal government would abolish it. So I would welcome clarification on that point. I would also welcome clarification from any member of the Opposition as to how the Opposition, if it were in government, would simultaneously reduce taxation, increase expenditure and reduce the deficit, as the Leader of the Opposition claims it would do. Senator SCOTT —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It has been brought to my notice that there is a significant delay in the preparation of the foreshadowed veterans' entitlement Bill and, consequently, its introduction into the Parliament. There may be legitimate reasons for this position but there is also real concern that the proposed legislation may contain propositions unacceptable to the ex-service community which the Government may seek to hide in a pre-election atmosphere. In view of the Government's undertaking that the Bill would be introduced in this session and then be made available for public scrutiny for several months, and because of the wide-ranging matters involved which are of great concern to ex-service men and women, their dependants and war widows, would the Minister advise whether there is a delay and, more importantly, whether it is still the Government's determination, as foreshadowed by the Leader of the House on 24 August, to bring the Bill into the Parliament before we rise from the Budget session? Senator GIETZELT —The veterans' entitlements Bill is scheduled to be introduced into the House of Representatives in this Budget session. Senator Scott is correct in saying that. The Special Minister of State, Mr Young, has made that announcement. However, the timing, because it is a money Bill and therefore has to be presented in the House of Representatives, depends largely upon the finalisation of the consultative processes between myself and the veterans' organisations, particularly the Returned Services League. As late as about 10 days ago I sent a six-page letter to the National Executive of the RSL in response to a number of questions that it had raised with the Government about the preparation of the Bill. Consequently I am led to believe that the RSL will be communicating with me again at the conclusion of its national conference about further matters that it wishes to discuss with the Government before the Bill is finalised. As there has been extensive consultation during the whole of 1984 with the veterans' organisations about the veterans' entitlements Bill, which is designed to bring into one comprehensive Bill all the various Act that have been enacted since World War I dealing with the veterans entitlements, it is natural for the veterans' community, and in particular the largest organisation, the RSL to have the opportunity to present views to the Government. When those views are finally presented to me I will be taking them to the Cabinet. If that matter is expedited by the Returned Services League it is my hope to have it before Cabinet within the next fortnight with a view to having it considered by Cabinet and presented to the Parliament. But that will depend upon the results of consultation. It is certainly the Government's intention to have the Bill at least in the Parliament, although whether it will be passed by the Parliament will depend upon the Prime Minister and the date he announces for election and the dissolution of Parliament. It is certainly the intention of the Government to have the entitlement Bill in the House of Representatives but its passage depends upon the program of the Government in respect of the election. Senator COLEMAN —Has the attention of the Minister for Resources and Energy been drawn to recent claims that amorphous silicon photovoltaic cells will soon supply all the electricity needs of new Japanese homes? If so, will he advise the Senate whether those claims are justified and whether research is being undertaken in Australia on the use of amorphous silicon photovoltaic cells as an alternative energy source? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to a letter that was published in the Australian on 20 August, signed by Jenny MacLeod, the New South Wales President of the Australian Democrats, in which it is claimed, inter alia, that for an extra 5 per cent to 10 per cent-presumably on the cost of an existing roof tile- a substance can be sprayed on to roof tiles which will supply the electricity needs of a household. The claim is wrong on several grounds. Firstly, according to estimates obtained from Sanyo quite recently, such tiles can be produced at two to four times the cost of the conventional roofing tiles, not an incremental cost of 5 per cent to 10 per cent as Ms MacLeod has claimed. Certainly, the amorphous silicon photovoltaic cells cannot be sprayed on. That is technically incorrect. Although such a cell is more efficient under low light conditions than the conventional solarvoltaic cell it is on average less efficient than the conventional photovoltaic cell. Another very important economic ramification not mentioned by Ms MacLeod, the Australian Democrats New South Wales President, is that these photovoltaic cells produce direct current. To run a television set, for example, one must have alternating current and therefore an inverter would be required before the electricity produced by such roof tiles could be substituted for present power supplies in houses. Secondly, and most importantly, unless everybody who had these roof tiles was going to go to bed with the chooks-that is a Western Australian rural phrase which I should perhaps explain; it means going to bed at sundown-it would be absolutely essential to have storage batteries before the electricity supplied by these photovoltaic cells at unknown cost would be of any use at all to provide lights in the evening. The cost of storage batteries is very significant. Senator Coleman also asked me what funding was being applied in Australia. Solar voltaic energy research is funded through the national energy research, development and demonstration program and from other sources in Australia listed and described in the document 'Compendium of Australian Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Projects No. 5' dated June 1984 and recently released. To return to the substance of the question of the Australian Democrats New South Wales President, we are, of course, accustomed to such intellectual froth and bubble from the Australian Democrats. It might be suitable for a Democrats afternoon tea party; it is quite inapplicable, however, to those who are seriously involved in the business of government. At some point such wishful thinking and self-delusion ceases to be an excusable indulgence and becomes culpable intellectual sloth. Any party which gestates and midwifes such sloth should not be taken seriously when its candidates offer themselves for election to Parliament. Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator MacGibbon asked me a question earlier today about the Letters Patent and whether there had been consultation with the Governor- General about them and, more particularly, the issue of the Commander-in-Chief designation. I am advised that there was full consultation with the Governor- General, who agreed with the proposal in question. Senator GARETH EVANS —I was asked during Question Time by Senator Missen about progress in the establishment of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. The situation is this: Section 53 of the National Crime Authority Act will, as Senator Missen will recall, provide for a joint committee consisting of five members from the Senate and five from the House of Representatives. I presume that the breakup will be 3:2, Government and Opposition, in the House of Representatives and 3:1:1, Government, Opposition and others, in the Senate. They are the familiar principles that are applied to these matters. The terms of the resolution have yet, of course, to be debated in the respective chambers and Senator Missen will have an opportunity to create another vacancy for himself if he thinks he cannot manage to get the one under those circumstances. I make the point further that it is intended to introduce in the House of Representatives this week the motion with respect to the composition of the Committee. Notice will be given to the other parties in the ordinary way. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I claim to have been misrepresented in two articles in the Bulletin of 4 September 1984 in relation to my dissenting report on the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. These articles state my position most inaccurately and then proceed to use these inaccuracies as a basis for criticism . The first article is by Richard Farmer, Alan Reid and Malcolm Turnbull at pages 34, 35 and 36 under the heading 'Exclusive: Justice Murphy's next move'. This article says Neither Chipp nor the two Liberal Senators paid regard to the submissions put to the Committee by Murphy's Counsel. I deny this allegation. I had regard to all the submissions, oral and written, of Mr Justice Murphy's counsel. Further I refer to paragraphs 20 and 21 of my dissenting report in which I specifically mention part of the submission put to the Committee by Murphy's counsel and then I accept and adopt that submission. The article goes on to allege that my conduct has been unjust, which I deny, and then reports: . . . the Senate Committee wrote to Murphy's solicitors in May and assured them that no adverse finding would be made against Murphy by the Committee without any proposed adverse finding being put to him first so that he could answer them . The article goes on to say: The Liberal senators were presumably aware of this letter, but nonetheless made as adverse a finding against Murphy as could be imagined. It is understood his legal advisers were under the legitimate impression that no adverse finding of any kind would or could, in fairness to him, be made since they had received no prior warning. This is a most vicious piece of misreporting. I refer to paragraph 19 of the dissenting report, which I quote: We stress that we are not finding that misbehaviour has been proved. That sentence clearly puts the lie to the allegations, and I observe that in his statement to the Senate yesterday the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) acknowledged my position on this point. As if that misrepresentation were not bad enough, the report then goes further to misreport out of context. It says: The Liberal senators' findings are doubly curious in that they positively conclude that Briese was an honest and sincere witness. . . . The assertion that this was a finding particular to the dissenting report is false. It was the unanimous finding of the Committee. At paragraph 87 the report says: The Committee was of the opinion that Mr Briese gave his evidence sincerely and honestly . . . It is inconceivable to me that experienced and competent journalists could unwittingly make such errors. The second article in the Bulletin is on pages 34 and 35 of the same edition. It is written by someone who prefers to write anonymously as 'The Officious Bystander' and is headlined: 'Liberals are undermining the High Court'. This article goes further than misrepresentation. I believe that it maliciously defames me and further that it is contemptuous of every member of the Select Committee and, indeed, in contempt of the Senate. The allegation in the headline is grossly untrue and unfair. I have acted as a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge in accordance with the requirements of a resolution of the Senate, and I believe that it is outrageous that I should be so maligned for having performed my duty. The article asserts that my report was based on 'pathetically inadequate' evidence. The article then purports to outline that evidence. However, that outline has such serious inaccuracies and omissions that it constitutes a complete distortion of the evidence before the Committee and upon which my report was based. The article then asserts that I am determined to damage the established institutions of Australia, including the High Court of Australia, ' for the sake of a temporary political advantage'. Mr President, that allegation is totally false, unfair and offensive. The article then goes on to suggest that Mr Briese should lay an information before a magistrate, in other words, commence criminal proceedings against the judge. Having put that proposal, 'The Officious Bystander' then writes: If Briese won't do it, then presumably Senators Peter Durack and Austin Lewis will as they believe there is a prima facie case against Murphy. But of course the two Liberal senators probably won't want to take advantage of the court system. The fashionable thing nowadays is to have kangaroo court inquiries where everything will be alleged and nothing will be proved and the tedious technicalities of a fair trial will be set aside. I refer specifically to the fact that the reference to a kangaroo court is in the same paragraph as reference to the two Liberal senators and follows a paragraph in which I am named. I am outraged by the suggestion that I should in any way be associated with a kangaroo court and I refer to paragraphs 20 to 25 of my dissenting report in which I make it clear that there should be a public hearing of a charge in accordance with the principles of natural justice as requested by counsel for the judge. Every member of the Committee was concerned to ensure that if the Committee moved into a judicial phase, which it did not do, the hearing should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice. So the suggestion of a kangaroo court is contemptuous of every member of the Committee. Further, the author of the article seems to be positioning for an attack on the Senate if it should determine to have a hearing of this matter. As I said, Mr President, I believe that in this article not only have I been misrepresented but indeed I have been maliciously defamed and it may be that the article is in contempt of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —Yesterday, after I presented the 1983-84 annual report for the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, mentioned that there was considerable delay in receiving copies of the daily Hansard for 23 and 24 August during the following week's recess. I have been advised by the Principal Parliamentary Reporter that in the sitting week commencing 21 August some delays in the delivery of daily Hansard were experienced, due partly to breakdown of equipment in the Government Printing Office but more particularly to priority being accorded to the legislative requirements of Executive departments. The daily Hansard for Thursday, 23 August was delivered to Parliament House late on Friday after the Senate had risen. The daily Hansard for Friday, 24 August was produced during the weekend. Senate mail room staff advise that both Hansards were at the Senate mail room when Senate staff reported for duty on Monday, 27 August and were distributed that morning. With regard to Estimates Committee Hansards, I reported to the Senate earlier this year that, following the difficulties experienced in having copies available at that time, I have taken steps to ensure that if delivery of the printed Hansard is to be delayed beyond the next sitting day of the Committee, a set of page proofs of the Hansard is to be provided to the appropriate committee secretaries. I have been advised that the delivery of yesterday's daily Estimates Committee Hansard has been delayed due to the work load of printing Hansard for two Houses plus three Estimates committees. The Government Printer has advised me that he expects yesterday's Estimates Hansards to be available early on Thursday, 6 September Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I shall make a few remarks because I was one who raised the difficulties that arose during the last week of sitting, although the difficulties relate not just to that period. In recent months, we have found that the speed with which Hansard has been delivered to honourable senators has decreased. Instead of Hansard being delivered early in the morning so that honourable senators can check remarks made during the previous day and can refer, if necessary, to those statements early in the proceedings on the following day, Hansard is coming out later and later, sometimes in the afternoon. Consequently, this is not just a difficulty that arose at the end of that week, although what happened then was more extreme. I did not see the Friday Hansard until the middle of the following week. It is, of course, difficult if honourable senators do not receive the Hansard on the following day. That was not the record of Hansard for many years. Its delivery was very speedy. I understand, from those who serve on Estimates committees, that there have often been delays in the delivery of Hansard. When I complained about this aspect last week, I was told that at the end of the week the urgency to produce Hansard declines. If that is true, I think it is unfortunate. I do not know why the Thursday Hansard should not be out before we leave on Friday and why the Friday Hansard should not be available first thing on Monday. I know that last week there was a mail strike in Canberra which, to some extent, may have delayed the delivery of Hansard to honourable senators away from Canberra. I suggest that inquiries should be made to ascertain whether there is a need for either better machines or more staff to ensure that Hansard's excellent record in previous years in making Hansard available to honourable senators early on the day following a hearing is not lost but recovered. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I seek leave of the Senate to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —My personal explanation arises out of an answer given during Question Time by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button). It relates to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The honourable senator purported to quote what had been said by Mr Don Gibbons, the Executive Director of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. The honourable senator gave the impression that Mr Gibbons was critical of the Liberal Party's industry and commerce policy. In fact, Mr Gibbons said that we would not support a policy that would not have a key advisory group and went back to a mad scramble for lobbying. In fact, the policy has a provision for consultative and advisory groups. Mr Gibbons has explained that his comments were taken somewhat out of context when he was given the impression by journalists who rang him that there was no provision for an advisory body in which small businesses could participate. I wish to explain that there is no Liberal policy that would not provide for consultative groups. There certainly is a Liberal policy that there would be consultative groups in which small businesses would be involved. That means that the only person to criticise the proposal for the abolition of EPAC was Mr Coates, who was a member of EPAC. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The disastrous impact upon Austrlaian families of the Hawke Labor Government's taxation and social security policies. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(3.16) —Prior to the Budget, the Opposition had identified the reduction in living standards of many Australians. Before the presentation of the Budget, the Opposition took the opportunity to issue a statement to the effect that a calculation had been made that a worker on average weekly earnings needed at least a $22 a week tax cut to be in the same position he was in two years ago. In the context of the discussion prior to the Budget and the promises of tax cuts, it is timely to look at the numbers of promises that have been made to the Australian people. First, there was the firm election promise of 1983 in which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that there would be immediate reductions for about six million taxpayers with assistance to go to those who had the greatest need. In 1984, the Prime Minister again made the promise. He said: . . . we will I believe be able to have tax reductions in our second Budget. We aim to do that in the context of a reduced deficit and in doing that we will obviously seek to give relatively greater relief to those who need it most. There were expectations of tax cuts, because allied with those promises were open discussions held with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to give tax cuts to maintain the prices and incomes accord. The discussions held with the trade union movement gave rise to public commitments by the Government that there would be tax cuts. In July, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) made a statement in which he said: . . . the important principle that we ought to be pursuing in taxation reform is the requirement that the taxation system as a whole becomes more progressive. That is that those people who have the ability to pay more in fact do pay more and that in relation to the equity of the system we don't exclude certain forms of taxation in favour of certain other forms of taxation. That promise gave rise to much concern by those who wondered what other forms of taxation were likely to be used by the Government in either the current Budget or a future Budget. A feeling of certainty about tax cuts was given because of the certainty of an early Federal election. The early Federal election seems to be upon us-at least, it will be the election that relates itself to this Budget. The Budget now before us certainly proclaimed that it gave some tax cuts. If we look at the Budget, as the figures that have been provided enable us to do, we find that the dominant feature relating to households would sustain the view that we had-that there are no real tax cuts for the majority of Australians as had been promised. A benefit of something over $7 a week has been given to a number of taxpayers. However, a number of other things were not done by a government which has an indexation mentality with regard to the collection of excise and with regard to wages through the prices and incomes accord. The Government does not, however, seem to transfer that approach to indexation of personal taxes. The approach used was a tax cut, and statements were made that it would be directed to those who were most in need of assistance. Yet we find from tax scales that have been produced that those with an annual income of $5,000 or $6,000 do not enjoy the same benefits as those with higher incomes. Indeed, people in the middle structure have benefits related to their incomes which are in excess of the benefits given to those on the very lowest level of income. That is not something that would be expected when people talk about a progressive tax system , and the figures prepared by the legislative service bear that out. A little later I may seek to have a table incorporated in Hansard. The matter of public importance relates to the position of households in Australia. In the Budget there was a restructuring of the personal income tax scale, which now comprises five steps in lieu of the former three steps. For the very broad band of taxpayers with incomes in the range of $12,501 to $28,000 per annum the tax cut represents a saving of some $7.60 per week. Beyond the $28,000 income level the tax cut gradually reduces to a level of $2.79 per week, which is reached on an income of $35,788 per year. This exercise has made for a rate scale which is even more progressive than before, so we can assume that that promise has been upheld. There were measures in the Budget to extend spouse rebates to de facto couples, and income tested rebates will be provided for the recipients of unemployment, sickness and special benefits. It should be noted that the low income threshold below which the one per cent Medicare levy is not payable will be increased, but for many people the Medicare news is in the opposite direction, that is, the increase in the levy ceiling to $750 per annum from the previous level of $700. That change will take effect from 1 November this year. The Budget also introduced changes in welfare benefits, and my colleague Senator Messner will speak about these in more detail. The increases to pensions and benefits which needed to be made to compensate for Medicare did mean a change of some $2.50 per week for single people and $4.20 a week for couples. The tax changes ranged from $7.60 a week for some people down to something like $2 for those at the higher end of the tax scale. It must be noted that the Budget increases taxes; it does not reduce taxes. There is the reduction that has been mentioned, but there is also an increase of some 23 per cent in the income tax collected from individuals. The average weekly earner, prior to the Budget, had experienced a reduction in his standard of living by something like $20 a week. We are now looking at an increase in taxes of 23 per cent under this Budget. This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that, although some headlines referred to tax cuts, the Budget was a very high taxation Budget. It increased taxes for individuals to the extent that such collections will this year represent 53 per cent of total receipts compared with something under 51 per cent in 1982-84. Senator Walsh, in an answer at Question Time, chose to give some figures relating to the gross domestic product. Such figures can be misleading because in a period of lower growth and depressed gross domestic product we will get a particular result. I think it is more appropriate to look at the total revenue the Government is collecting in the Budget year and to consider taxes as a percentage of that amount. I repeat that the income tax to be paid by individuals this year will represent 53 per cent of total receipts. In effect, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has relied on the old device of fiscal drag whereby, under an unindexed progressive income tax system, as incomes increase taxpayers are carried across the thresholds that mark the tax brackets. Thus we get the increased revenue that it is quite clear will be derived from this Budget. The Treasurer has been able to finance his tax cuts of $1.2m, meagre though they might be, whilst limiting his future loss of revenue by making the tax scale even more progressive. We therefore finish up with a more complex and more progressive tax scale when what ought to be our aspiration is something more simple, something which encourages people rather than imposes a penalty on rewards given for extra effort. A higher progressive tax bias undoubtedly encourages tax evasion and involves extra expenditure on its policing, as is foreshadowed in this Budget by the Treasurer. Another matter of great importance in this Budget is that the central purpose of the income tax cuts is, as quite frankly stated, a quid pro quo for wage restraint. We need to look at the revenue estimates because they depend for their validity on an assumption not only of better employment prospects but also of average weekly earnings on a national accounts basis increasing by around 7 per cent in 1984-85. That is the figure used in the Budget, and I think that ought to be emphasised because we are talking about indexation of wages. The pay -as-you-earn estimates for tax collection have been based on this figure of 7 per cent; whereas if one were looking at something that showed the restraint we want to see, particularly the restraint that has been based on the prices and incomes accord, one would have thought we would be looking at an increase in average weekly earnings of something closer to 5 per cent or 5.5 per cent. Yet we have assessed the income derived from PAYE taxpayers on an increase in average weekly earnings of 7 per cent. If inflation does come down to 5.5 per cent per annum, as measured by the consumer price index at the June quarter 1985 compared with the June quarter 1984, that 5.5 per cent, one would have thought, would have been related to the increase in PAYE estimates. This gives an indication that it is expected there will be some increase in average weekly earnings over and above the consumer price index increase. Changes have arisen through the introduction of the compulsory Medicare levy, and it ought to be said in passing that two-income families paying the Medicare levy are finding that, with the necessary provision of some private health insurance, they are in many instances paying more for their health care than they were. Senator Walsh asked, in answer to a question put to him: How is it that we need to look at reductions in taxes, expenditure and deficits, and at the same time not find easy answers? I think it would be acknowledged that to do all of those things in any Budget in the current economic climate would be difficult. However , unless there is a serious approach to the reduction of expenditure by Australian governments, of course they will not be able to offer real tax reductions, real tax cuts, and to improve the standard of living of the Australian people in the way in which it would be expected when we are talking about recovery and improvement in the economy. With a Budget that increases taxes, increases spending, increases the deficit and increases the interest to fund the deficit by about 21 1/2 per cent, of course it is impossible to give real tax cuts. So it is a matter of looking at the Government's expenditure and the structure of a Budget before one embarks upon something that will impose further burdens on the people. The $20-plus a week that had already been lost by workers before the Budget meant that the average wage earner needed to work an extra two hours a week to support the sort of government expenditure and the repayment of government loans and borrowings that are required by the Government. But there are other aspects of the Budget and this Government's decisions since its election which also impinge upon families' disposable incomes. For instance, we could take the Australian Labor Party proposal concerning a 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. That was said to be something that would affect only those on high incomes; it would not affect many. However, looking at the number of people in superannuation schemes, one finds that we are talking about not just a few people but hundreds of thousands. They are now affected by the superannuation changes. If we add to those already in schemes the possible 430,000 people from the construction industry who are hoping to be in a scheme, we find that we are talking about more like three million people than any other number. That is not just a few people. If one relates the changes introduced by the Labor Party to the position of a person now aged 45 who enters a superannuation scheme today with a view to achieving a modest enough lump sum benefit of, say, $150,000 at the age of 65, in 20 years' time, one realises that that person will have to pay an extra $5 a week in tax contributions for the rest of his or her working life because of the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation. Therefore, that sort of additional expenditure, when related to the tax cut of $7.60, even on the best scale, means that that tax cut is seriously eroded. The people affected by superannuation policy changes are the people who will look at the tax cuts very closely, because they are aware of the other imposts that will be there for them. Another promise that was made but not fulfilled was a change to the tax free threshold. In 1983 the Prime Minister said that he would raise the threshold from $4,595 to $5,000. He said that this was necessary in order to free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax. He also promised that the Government would raise the dependent spouse rebate where there were dependent children from $1,030 per annum to $1,134 in order to provide additional benefits to families. That would have been a real benefit to families, but it was not achieved in either of the Budgets that have been introduced. It was also said that the 46c tax threshold would be raised from $19,500 to $19 ,750. Of course, with the new structure of five tax scales, more people now find themselves in an even higher tax bracket, let alone with the creep that occurs through the non-indexation of previous thresholds. So the real value of the dependent spouse rebate has been allowed to erode. There were not the changes that took account of indexation in the tax thresholds. There was not the change that would have been expected in the tax brackets. So we look at tax cuts, as they were described, and find that they were not cuts but a reduction in increased taxes that are being drawn from the people. In 1984-85 about one million Australians will move into higher tax brackets. The tax free threshold, the 46c threshold, the new threshold-all will impinge upon many workers. With one million people moving into higher brackets, we need to be concerned for the effect of this on families' disposable incomes. It was for these reasons that we felt it timely to raise these matters as matters of concern and importance. This Budget raises expectations that there are benefits within it but those benefits are illusory. We need to look at this Budget's implications in terms of financing a deficit of the magnitude of the present one, and the amounts that are drawn from all Australian people to finance the big spending programs and to finance the deficit. Yet the people are given the platitude that in some way they have been given a tax cut. Big deficits and big spending make it impossible for tax cuts to be given. We wish that the Government would look at these matters in context and not try to delude the people with the illusion of a tax cut that does not exist. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.36) —The matter of public importance raised this afternoon by my old sparring partner Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle is: The disastrous impact upon Australian families of the Hawke Labor Government's taxation and social security policies. That is a pretty broad matter of public importance. It is clear from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's speech that such a matter is put down to enable members of the Opposition to have a general blast at the Government and at the Budget in particular, and I suppose that we shall hear more of that this afternoon. Before I deal with the content of the matter of public importance, it is worth while to point out that it is important to all Australian families to have an economy which is growing and an economy in which people can have confidence that things will get better. People should have confidence to invest. It is important to have an economy in which unemployment is falling and in which more people have jobs. That is exactly what we have now. It is worth while reminding honourable senators that if one reads the Press of this country and hears the economic commentators, one gets a very different impression of what is going on from that gained from the carping and nagging criticisms of members of the Opposition that we get in this place every week. The reason they have to make speeches like they do is that, first, they have no leg to stand on in criticising the Government and secondly, they have no policies which anyone would see as credible alternatives to the existing Government's policies. The simple fact of the matter is that inflation has fallen from a high of 11.3 per cent to under 6 per cent in this country. We have had an economic growth rate of 10 per cent, which is the highest of all comparable countries in the world in the last year. As I said in answer to a question from Senator Maguire today, we are paying unemployment benefits to 55,000 fewer people than we were 12 months ago. There are in this country 250,000 people who have jobs but who did not have them when we came to power. The simple fact of the matter is that this economy is immeasurably better than it was when we came to power. We have managed this improvement, to bring down inflation, to increase employment and to increase confidence in the community, and at the same time we have managed to introduce a Budget which, despite what Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle says, contains tax cuts and has increased payments to those who are in most need and which reflects a reduction in the deficit. All of us on this side of the House are perfectly happy to defend that sort of record. If matters of public importance such as this one are to be put up every week we shall be happy to answer them and to defend our record-a record that the vast majority of Australians appreciate. The first subject that the matter of public importance raises is the Government 's taxation policy. All I can suggest about the attacks on this policy by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and others of the Opposition is that they are completely baseless. In the last year of the Fraser-Howard Government tax revenues represented 25 per cent of gross domestic product. Despite the rapid recovery in revenues this year, tax revenues adjusted for the effects of Medicare will still be only 24 per cent of gross domestic product in 1984-85. It is the former Government, with its former discredited Treasurer, as my colleague Senator Walsh persists in calling him, that remains the highest taxing government in Australia's peacetime history. The Government in this year's Budget, as is recognised by everyone in the community, with the possible exception of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and some of her colleagues, has provided a significant reduction in personal income taxes. Within the total tax revenue of the Government PAYE taxes happen to have significantly fallen. Net pay as you earn taxes, adjusting for the Medicare arrangements, are 41.5 per cent of tax collections this year compared with 46 per cent in the last two years of the Fraser Government. Not only is the present Government a lower-taxing Government, but within the total tax take the taxes on salary and wage earners have decreased significantly. We have provided genuine tax cuts of $1.2 billion. For the vast majority of taxpayers there is a reduction of $7.60 per week. The progressivity of the scale-something to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle apparently objects-has increased and the tax cuts are not affected and are not taken away, as were former Treasurer Howard's, by a large increase in indirect taxation. I remind honourable senators that in 1982 in Mr Howard's Budget there was a full-year revenue effect of over $1.4 billion in indirect taxes. That took back about 60 per cent of the income tax cuts which were provided in the November 1982 Budget. The previous Government frequently introduced what it claimed were tax cuts with one hand and then took them away with the other. The tax cuts this year will provide tax reductions for a considerable number of Australians. Some 2,250,000 people, about a third of the total number of taxpayers in this country, will have a lower marginal tax rate, namely 25 per cent. As a result of the new rebates and lower tax scales, 85,000 people will cease to be subject to taxation at all. Of course, every year, whatever government is in power, some people will pay increased taxes because they get increased wages, but the simple fact of the matter is-and it cannot be got away from-that every taxpayer will get at least some reduction this year, and the vast majority of them will get a tax cut of about $7.60 a week. If one is to look at alternatives, and certainly at the alternative government, one must examine the Opposition's record and what it is now saying. I suppose one can only rely on the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and those of the former Treasurer, the present shadow Treasurer. It is important to realise that, first of all-as my colleague Senator Walsh points out every day at Question Time-it is not easy to get a consistent picture when one listens to those two people. The wine tax is just one example. The Leader of the Opposition says the alternative government will remove the wine tax but the shadow Treasurer says no, it will not. The Opposition has not let us know what its tax policy will be. We do not know what it is about, but we can get some clues from the sorts of speeches we have heard from Mr Peacock and Mr Howard. We know, for instance, from its behaviour in this place that the Opposition, Senator Harradine and others will continue to avoid taking measures against the tax avoiders in this community-people who are evading taxes and costing the ordinary taxpayer in the community a vast amount of money. We know that Mr Howard is in favour of a broad based indirect tax. We know that he wishes to reform the taxation system in the direction of a broad based indirect tax. We know that if the Opposition comes to government it will put a further burden on taxpayers by increasing tax concessions such as the investment allowance, which could cost taxpayers generally in the community some $600m a year. We know that if the Opposition assumes government it intends to remove the taxation on lump sum super- annuation-a matter to which Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred in her speech. We know that will cost about $300m a year. We know, if we believe Mr Peacock, that if he gets his way the alternative government would abolish the tax on wine. That would cost about $60m a year. We know that Mr Peacock and his supporters will abolish things like the assets test costing about $50m a year. We know that they claim they will abolish the over-70s means test, which again will cost over $200m a year. All this will cost the revenue anything up to $2,000m a year. But at the same time the Opposition claims that it will reduce taxes, cut the deficit, and perform economic magic. Nobody believes that, not even the ex-Treasurer, Sir William McMahon, and certainly not the Treasurer of the Liberal Party in Victoria, Mr Elliott, who continues to criticise this sort of nonsense that one hears from the Leader of the Opposition. We know that the Opposition if it reached government would not take action against tax evaders. We know that it will not support the proposals of this Government, and certainly will not on its part put up any proposals to deal with tax evaders. The Opposition would present this country with a series of policies which do not add up and, if carried out, would inevitably mean that it would have to raise taxes-either direct or indirect taxes-itself. In addition to the general tax cut, in the Budget we have provided a 25 per cent increase in zone rebates, which will greatly benefit tens of thousands of Australians living in remote areas. We have introduced new rebates for unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries to ensure that they pay no tax on incomes when the sole source of income is in fact the benefits. To make the tax system fairer, we have increased our efforts against tax avoidance and evasion, there is to be a complete overhaul of the tax penalty provisions, and we have increased the number of Tax Office compliance staff by 392, and increased total staff by 705. The fact that the Opposition brings up taxation as an issue in a debate such as this is symptomatic of its feelings of failure in responding to the Budget two weeks ago. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition stood up and offered absolutely nothing of substance. We have heard nothing of substance this afternoon, and I dare say that we will get nothing of substance from later speakers. The people of Australia know that this Government has improved the taxation system. They know that we have provided tax cuts for vast numbers of taxpayers, and they also know that no government can make all the changes it would like to make in 18 months of power. What the people know and have confidence in is that at last we have stable, forward-looking policies and a government that is confident to make hard decisions and to wear the flak for those decisions in order to improve the economy. The second part of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's matter of public importance refers to our social security policies. I understand that Senator Messner intends to speak and no doubt he has been left the task of criticising us in that area. The whole aim of the Government's social security policies has been to provide increased assistance to Australian families in greatest need. We persist with that aim and have followed it consistently since we got into power. In this year's Budget as well as a $2.50 a week increase in the single rate of pension and a $4.20 a week increase in the married rate, further increased assistance has been provided to pensioners and beneficiaries with children, and in particular to those renting privately. They are the worst off people in this country-the people who were badly neglected by the previous Government. Let us look at the measures the present Government has introduced for these groups and contrast them with the efforts of the previous Government in this regard. The additional pension benefit and family income supplement for children in low income families will be increased by $2 a week from November 1984, on top of the $2 increase provided last year. This represents a 40 per cent increase in the payments since we gained office. The previous Government increased this payment by only $2.50 in the entire seven years of its office. Supplementary rent assistance paid to pensioners and sickness beneficiaries who rent privately will be increased by $5 a week-a 50 per cent increase from November 1984. The previous Government also increased this payment by $5 during its 7-year term of office. We we have given the same increase in 18 months as the previous Government gave during the whole seven years of its period in office. The mother 's or guardian's allowance paid to sole parents will be increased by $2 a week. The previous Government could manage only a $2 a week increase during the whole seven years of its period in office. To give an example of the increased levels of assistance provided in this Budget, a widow with one child who rents privately will receive an additional $ 11.50 a week, a 10 per cent increase in assistance. A married invalid pensioner with two children who rents privately will receive an additional $13.20 a week. Is the Opposition seriously trying to imply that these sorts of increases are insignificant or, as the matter of public importance states, that they will have a disastrous impact on these families? To suggest that is humbug. What the Government has done has been to provide significant increases in assistance for the most needy individuals and families in our society. We have exceeded or equalled in 18 months what the previous Government did for these people over seven years. So much for the Opposition's concern for low income families. I point out that we did it during difficult economic circumstances and in a difficult budgetary situation. We recognised that these people, who had been neglected for so long, were the people who needed help the most. Criticism has been levelled, particularly from one of the honourable senators who are to speak later, that the Budget provided for no increase in family allowances or in the dependent spouse rebate. That is true. What the Government had to do within the constraints of the need to reduce the deficit-an objective which the Opposition claims it agrees with-was to concentrate on assistance for needy families. Let us consider what the result would have been if, instead of increasing the payments we did, we had increased family allowances by the same amount. For each dollar a month-a month and not a week-of increased family allowances the cost would have been in the order of $52.5m in a full year, or $ 40m in 1984-85 if we had increased the allowances from November. To achieve the same $16 a month increase-that is, the $4 a week increase in assistance to low income families provided by increasing family allowances-we would have had to pay out some $840m in a full year, or $640m in 1984-85. After deducting the cost of increases in additional pensions and benefits, family income supplements and the mother's/guardian's allowance, the increase in the deficit that would have resulted from such an increase in family allowances would have been about $760m in a full year, or $520m in 1984-85. Assuming that the Opposition is not so callous as to suggest that an increase in family allowances should not provide the same increase in assistance to low income families as is provided by the measures we put in the Budget, it is proposing an extraordinary increase in the deficit. One is forced to ask whether the Opposition really believes that the deficit should be lower, as every economic commentator and every sane person in this country believes. If we look at the Fraser Government's record on family allowances we find that, following the statements by the former Prime Minister in 1976 that the increase in family allowances was the greatest social reform this century, the previous Government increased those allowances only once during its seven years of office . During that time the real value of family allowances declined substantially and the real levels of assistance to low income families through additional pensions, benefits and the mother's/guardian's allowance also declined substantially. The previous Government not only did not care about families in general but also in particular totally ignored the needs of low income families. We could not do that. We could not do it last year, we could not do it this year and we will not do it in the future. The simple fact is that when one is in government and one has to make hard economic decisions, one should not ask the least affluent in the community, those least able to protect themselves, to bear more than their fair share of the burden of one's efforts to achieve economic recovery. It is for that reason that we concentrated on the low income families and the disadvantaged families of this community. We do not apologise for that. The fact that we were able to do that and at the same time provide a significant tax cut for Australian taxpayers and, indirectly through that, maintain the prices and incomes accord means that we have come up with a formula in this Budget which will turn what has been an economic pick-up into sustained economic recovery. That is why we are in government and that is why we will stay in government. That is why we are happy to debate this matter any time the Opposition proposes it. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.55) —Senator Grimes, in his contribution to the debate on this matter of public importance, said, amongst other things, that governments are not capable of doing all that one might like. That is certainly a reasonable proposition with which probably no one would disagree. However, while the position of the poor in Australia may not improve, the least we could expect under a Labor government is that their position would not deteriorate. The cold, hard fact is that under the Hawke-led Government the poor are further below the poverty line than they were two years ago. With the exception of the 18-year-old unemployed they will still be worse off when they receive the handouts provided by the current Budget. I am not the only one who puts forward such propositions. Indeed, they were put forward yesterday by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The cold, hard fact is that Australia's poor are further below the poverty line than they were two years ago. Adopting Senator Grimes's position, one would have thought that the poor at least would have maintained their position. Anyone who had listened to the promises made when the Hawke Government came to power would have hoped that the position of the poor would have improved . I turn to the figures relating to this matter. From 1 November, the average single pensioner income will be 10 1/2 per cent below the poverty line compared with 9 per cent below the poverty line in November 1982. The income of the average pensioner couple with two dependent children will have dropped from being 8 1/2 per cent below the poverty line in 1982 to being 9 1/2 per cent below it this year. The Brotherhood's figures are supported by the latest estimates, which were released on Monday, of the Henderson poverty line which show that the single unemployed person receives less than half the minimum income needed to maintain any reasonable lifestyle in Australia. Based on procedures originally used in the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, the estimates suggest that Budget increases in social welfare benefits will do little for the people who are more disadvantaged. We are not saying that benefits have not been given or that the benefits that have been given are not useful. We are saying that people who are most disadvantaged will receive the least benefit. Currently half a million people in Australia receive unemployment benefit. Over two million people receive pensions. So it is extremely important that we consider those people. Our discussion today does not concern the whole ramifications of the Budget. Indeed, that discussion will take place after this debate. I would have hoped that this debate could focus-as we do so little in this chamber-on those who have so little in our community. According to the Institute for Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne University, the average family unit-a married couple with two children-needs to bring in about $ 227 a week to meet basic necessities. Currently, if the head of the family is not working, the basic figure is $204-the poverty line. If we take the Government increases into account, if the head of the family is not working the family will receive $194-$10 a week below the poverty line-and the family will receive $33 a week below the Institute figure if the head of the family is working. That is a most extraordinary situation. Of course, it is not possible for all those people on unemployment benefit to obtain work. I certainly hope that no one in the Government will suggest that that is possible because at the moment the jobs are not there. What I would like to do, therefore, is paint the best possible picture for the Government to see what the current situation is for a typical couple. Let us take the pensioners living in rented accommodation. They would be eligible for supplementary assistance. They will lose a total of 50 per cent of their income if they earn $15 or less as a result of any effort on their part to increase their supplementary assistance. Therefore, such people earning $15 will receive only $7.50 leaving them $26 below the poverty line. If those same people earn between $15 and $26 they will lose an extraordinary 89 per cent of their supplementary income. I repeat that they will lose 89 per cent of that income. In other words, for every dollar they earn over and above that $15, they will get to keep 11c. If members of this chamber or even if the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took such work, they would be taxed at the rate of 60c in the dollar. The pensioner and family in that situation will be roughly only $3 better off for all that work. Surely that is totally unacceptable to anybody in Australia. We are not talking here of additional outlays or of increased deficits. We are merely talking of a liberalisation of what people may earn so that they can assist themselves. I take as an example a mother working three hours a day, five days a week in a sandwich bar-a typical example of someone seeking to augment her meagre income. This part time job of three hours a day in a sandwich bar pays $15 a day. That would be the case under the wages set. The net effect of the mother working will be that she will retain only 10c in the dollar or a total of $7.50 for the week. If this person is paying anything for transport, as probably she would be-I have estimated $2 a day; a dollar there and a dollar back-she would be $2.50 a week worse off for working. Surely it is extraordinary when we reach a situation in this country where people on or below the poverty line and seeking to augment their incomes will penalised in that fashion. A change to this situation would in no way increase the deficit or increase outlays; it would merely give some relief to such people through a liberalisation of the rules on how much they can earn to assist themselves and their families. I turn now to tax. Of course, we have had a great deal of discussion since the Budget was brought down on the tax cuts for the majority of Australians. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, in her speech, talked about tax indexation. With the tax indexation which operated during some part of the Fraser Government, there were far better prospects for people below the poverty line than would have been the case with any movement in respect of tax cuts. It was a pity indeed that the previous Government decided to abolish what I think was a very good advance in this area. I will examine some figures in relation to this. If, for example, tax indexation had remained, a person receiving $5,000 a year would have benefited to the tune of about $95 instead of the $20 to be received under the current tax cuts. Therefore, it seems to me that one move that could be made in this regard by the Government, if it does not feel able to go to full indexation, is to index tax payments at that lower level so that the people who are really being ground down in our society would be the ones who would receive the relief. People further up the income scale would not get any relief although the people further down would. It is an extraordinary fact that if we had full indexation a person on $5,000 a year would get roughly $95 but will get $20 under the Government's tax cuts. A person earning $16,000 a year will get a tax relief of some $400 under the Hawke Government tax cuts whereas under the tax indexation I am suggesting, that person would still have been getting roughly only $95. I think that shows the progressive nature of the indexation that could work to the advantage of those people on lower income levels. That is our concern in this debate. We are concerned that those people who are in that bracket in Australia, and undoubtedly they exist, are worse off. This is certainly so based on figures which have not been challenged by Senator Grimes in this debate and which have been obtained from reputable sources. As I have mentioned, the figures obtained from the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Melbourne Institute show that those people are worse off now than they were two years ago. I think that means that we have to look at what types of movements can be made without going down the line that Senator Grimes mentioned. We have suggested that there need to be specific reforms to the pension and benefit systems to eliminate these poverty traps. This is where the various scales and benefits move together in terms of maximum amounts payable and cut off points. Poverty traps have been generated by the coincidence of those various scales. Such traps have not been eliminated in the Budget. One would have thought that a Labor government, in terms of its ideology and rhetoric, would have addressed itself to the elimination of those specific poverty traps. Obviously there need to be improved community services managed by local people. There need to be economic and social development bodies at local and regional levels. There are dramatic changes needed to many parts of our education system. I will be talking about some of these education areas in the Budget debate. I will be speaking on how such low income people have been disadvantaged by the specific education policies brought in by this Government. I think the two elements which probably stand out more than most are the need for higher permissible incomes for pensioners and those on benefits-that surely is necessary above all others-and higher child and family allowances to those groups in need. There are ways of doing this. Senator Grimes said that an amount of $800m will be necessary. We spend $1 billion on the spouse rebate, which should be redirected to the family allowance; in other words, directed to those families who have children, with all the problems they have to deal with. Surely , in community terms, that would be better expenditure of the $1 billion. There are many more examples. I do not think it is a matter, as Senator Grimes has suggested, of looking at a higher deficit. I think that must be rejected. There are other ways and means. If the Government cannot come up with those means, it is surely bankrupt in terms of this group of people. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(4.11) —I am very pleased to be able to support this matter of public importance, namely: The disastrous impact upon Australian families of the Hawke Labor Government's taxation and social security policies. This matter, I believe, is of great interest to the majority of Australians, who are watching family life being eroded day by day, primarily by the actions of the Government, with little forward planning for the self-sufficiency of Australians. It is appropriate that I contribute to today's debate both as a family woman and as chairman of the Queensland Government's Year of the Family. This is an initiative by the Queensland Government to draw attention to the very real need we have in this day and age to revert to the traditional family as the cornerstone of a stable and positive society. As chairman of the committee, I have spent many happy hours this year travelling throughout our State, talking with groups of every creed and range of beliefs about the importance of maintaining a strong respect for the family, and indeed encouraging governments, both Federal and State, to implement policies which are designed to encourage family life and self-sufficiency, not to kill if off, which seems to be the present trend. It is regrettable that the traditional family is not very trendy at the moment. Indeed, if we were to take notice only of what this Government considers to be priority issues, and if we follow media reports, we could be forgiven for thinking that in 1984 the majority of Australians live in either de facto or homosexual domestic situations, or perhaps both. I considered it an insult to the hundreds of thousands of women who are full time homemakers and mothers that the only consideration they got in this year's Budget was the fact that there was to be no increase in the spouse rebate and no increase in family allowances, although de facto spouses are to be granted the same entitlement that married women receive in that regard. A report of the National Women's Advisory Council stated: Women care for children, care for older or disabled family members, take responsibility for preparation of food, cleaning and general maintenance and the provision of clean clothing. For many women there is a conflict between that role and earning money to support their families. Women who are not in paid employment say they are made to feel guilty at not bringing in income; women who are in paid work feel that they are being accused of neglecting family responsibilities. If the women who stay at home were given a homemaker's allowance or a special home carer's allowance, whatever one might call it, that would be sufficient to help them feel that they had a special niche. I believe that any woman who stays at home and looks after a family has one of the best possible niches, and I speak from experience as far as that goes. The Women's Action Alliance called for a spouse allowance. It suggested that the Government should pay a special allowance to women who do not go out to work. It was suggested to me at lunchtime today that an allowance could be paid for occasional care to women who have children and feel that they want to get out of the home now and again. Perhaps they do not have grandmothers, who come in very handy when it comes to looking after little children. If a grandmother happens to be nearby, a mother will have an occasional carer anyway, but if she does not then something like a special allowance would be well worth while. The WAA's recommendation was that the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate should be increased to remove an inequity between the dual and single income families. At present two-income families have two tax-free thresholds, while a single income family has one. That means that the single income families pay higher income tax. These are matters that the Government really ought to be thinking about. I want to pay a tribute today to the women who do voluntary work in the community, something we quite often neglect to think about. I regard 1984 being the Year of the Family, even if it is only the Year of the Family in Queensland, as a real irony. The Federal Government this year has introduced more measures to erode the traditional family than perhaps have happened in the history of this Parliament. These include changes to the Family Law Act, the proposal to allow members of this Parliament to take their de facto spouses on their overseas trips, the implementation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the affirmative action provisions, and the changes to the criteria for the importation of pornographic material. All of these priorities of the Government have acted to erode the respect for the family which I would venture to say the majority of Australians still consider well earned, even if not trendy. It is worth while establishing that when we talk about the family we are talking about the majority of Australians-men, women and children-who choose to live in this traditional domestic situation. In recent years the rate of growth in the number of families and households has been twice the rate of population growth, but associated with this has been a significant decline in family size from 3.53 persons per household in 1966 to 3.1 persons in 1981. One and two- person households now account for 47 per cent of Australian households, compared with 28 per cent in 1947. In 1947, 29 per cent of households had more than four members, whereas in 1981 this applied to only 17 per cent. It is very sad and telling that in our present society the fastest growing family type is the single parent family. Between 1976 and 1981 single parent family numbers increased by 90,000 to more than a quarter of a million, so that they now make up 6.6 per cent of all families. I suppose we could blame that increased number on the alarming increase in the divorce rate. In the last session the Government decided that it would make available $100,000 to those people who wanted to get a divorce. I feel in my own heart that it would be better if the Government made that $100,000 available for counselling before they get married, so that we do not have such an increase in the divorce rate. The divorce rate has increased from 10 per 10,000 population in 1971 to 28 per 10,000 in 1980. Many men and women are being deserted and left alone to care for their children in single parent families. As well, many young girls have babies and choose to keep them and not put them up for adoption. It has been said before in this chamber that some girls deliberately set out to have babies so that they can get their single mother's benefit. I do not say that there are a lot of them, but it has been said that this is so. Although there are many men who are in the category of single parents, it is quite alarming to realise that more than 90 per cent of single parent households are headed by women. I believe, and I think this belief is shared by many, that the family is the primary social unit of our society. This should have far-reaching implications for policy makers. Because the family performs the vital role in developing the next generation we must view it as an essential unit of society, not just an economic unit. As well as taking this positive attitude towards family policies, or indeed any decisions which affect the family, we must also be mindful of the prevention of family break-ups. I was talking earlier about the divorce rate and how necessary it is to have counselling for people before they get married. While still giving service to needy families-I know that this is very important indeed; there are many needy families in our society, particularly people who are not able to get work-encouragement and skills for family self-sufficiency and independent living must also be provided and encouraged. That is where I feel that this spouse allowance, or the home carer's allowance that the WAA was talking about, is well worth while. Whilst on the one hand the Government is discouraging self-sufficiency and independent living by families through anti-family legislation, on the other hand if it is having to cop the increased pressure placed on it by the recipients of welfare payments-those people who would be self-sufficient given half the chance and a little encouragement. The emphasis of this Government, and indeed of any government, should be on the responsibility of individuals and families, with welfare sources reserved as a safety net for the very needy in our society. Actually, the 1984-85 Budget brought down by the Treasurer, the Hon . Paul Keating, a couple of weeks ago did not do too much for the self- sufficiency of the average Australian family, although we must acknowledge that with regard to low income families who are not in receipt of social security or similar pensions or benefits there was an increase to $14 per week per child in the maximum rate of family income supplement. There was, of course, a lot of flag waving by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer about the fact that the average taxpayer would be $7 a week better off after the supposed tax cuts. That was a lot of nonsense. The Hawke Government has done little to solve the fundamental longer term problems facing most Australian families. All it has done is put average Australians into a higher tax bracket while at the same time telling them that they are better off. Interest on the public debt has risen by a massive 29 per cent this year. The interest on it alone is now costing the average taxpayer about $17 a week. Honourable senators can bet their bottom dollar that, after the next election, they will see huge tax increases to help pay for the large social welfare bill which is the hallmark of this Government's philosophy. This year's Budget was very clearly an election Budget. Ultimately, the Government will have to come to grips with the staggering deficit, which is too high and which must place upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate. The Labor Government's two Federal Budgets so far have increased government spending in real terms by more than the former coalition Government's Budgets did in seven years. Commonwealth interest payments are up by a massive 29 per cent to $5,601m. This has to be paid for not only by today's taxpayers but also by the taxpayers of tomorrow. As I have said, paying for the interest debt will cost every taxpayer $17 a week. Believe it or not Labor now has to spend more on interest payments than it spends on defence. These are some of the facts that I wanted to bring to honourable senators today in speaking to this matter of public importance. I just want to reiterate one or two points that I have made, points which I feel are central to the whole question of the impact upon Australian families of this Labor Government's taxation and social security policies. As I have said, the family is the primary social unit of our society, whether or not the trendies in the Government want to admit it. This should also be taken into consideration when looking at the overall Budget context. We cannot continue on this never-ending path to social welfare madness. If we are to really-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. (Quorum formed) Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.25) —This afternoon I wish to speak in opposition to the thrust of the matter of public importance which has been brought forward by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on behalf of the Opposition. I find the terms of this matter of public importance quite breathtaking to read after seven years of Liberal government in Australia. After all the attacks on living standards of the ordinary Australian family over the last seven years and after the tax cuts we all remember the former Government giving in 1977, which were immediately taken away in 1978, this Opposition has come up with a matter of public importance like this. I find it quite surprising after the rapid and continuing rise in unemployment under the previous Government which had an enormous effect on the living standards of many Australians. The Opposition, in bringing forward this matter of public importance, is taking actions which smack of hypocrisy. It seems to me that when the Liberal Party of Australia is in opposition it suddenly recognises the family but when it is in government it tends to ignore it. Before I came into this place I remember reading a report which was prepared by the Parliamentary Library during the period of the Fraser Government-a report of 20 pages. Nineteen of those pages refer to the regressive taxation and social security action taken by the Fraser Government. From memory, only one item in those 20 pages referred to anything positive which was done by the Fraser Government which has a progressive effect- the departure tax at airports. Taxation data which has been made available with the current Budget really nails the lie of this matter of public importance. It really sheets home the tax increases and tax lurks which were available under the previous Government. I instance just one thing which is referred to in the taxation statistics published with this Budget, the dividend rebate introduced by Prime Minister Fraser in 1982 which he said would 'encourage the small investor'. We found out later that it went on the first $1,000 of everybody's dividends, including those of the super-rich. That particular little lurk cost the taxpayer $100m in a full year. The tax figures now available with this year's Budget document just what happened in 1982-83 with that rebate. Taxpayers with incomes of $30,000 or more- obviously fairly well-to-do citizens who represented 5.3 per cent of all taxpayers-obtained over 24 per cent of the total value of that rebate. In respect of that lurk, under the Fraser Government, the average taxation saving to somebody on $100,000 was $126 a year and to somebody on an average income, $7 a year. So honourable senators can see the enormous benefits which were made available to the wealthy by the previous Government. I do not think I heard Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, in talking on this subject today, refer at all to the very rapid rise in sales tax in the 1981 and 1982 Budgets under the current pretender to the Liberal throne, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who presided over two Budgets which saw a 6.6 per cent increase in total sales tax collections in Australia. That is a very regressive tax which takes more from the lower income families of this country. So let us have no more of this nonsense about Labor governments raising tax burdens and doing inadequate things in the social security area. Let us look at the record of this Government since it has been in office. Senator Messner —Don't worry; we will. Senator MAGUIRE —The honourable senator will have plenty of time. He will be in opposition for a long time. In the 12 months to June this year 230,000 extra Australians had jobs. That figure does not include all their dependants who benefited from the extra employment. Clearly, there was an enormous benefit to Australian families as a result of the higher number of people in employment in this country. Unemployment fell by 60,000 in the 12 months to June, not counting the dependants. That also has resulted in very large benefits to Australian families. Senator Grimes referred to the significant reduction in inflation under the present Government, which has also meant a very large benefit to average Australian households. Of course, since this Government has been in office we have had a one per cent reduction in housing loan interest rates, which has been of great benefit to home buying households. I am sure that in the next few months we will see a further reduction in home loan interest rates. The 1984 Budget provides very significant income tax cuts for personal taxpayers. In a full year the cost will be $2,100m, representing very real tax cuts indeed. One has only to point to the new 25c in the dollar tax rate to demonstrate the tax reform which has occurred in this Budget. Under the previous Government, the Liberal Government, the lowest tax rate was 30c in the dollar. We now have a 25c in the dollar tax bracket. Clearly, that will be of benefit to low income families. I am rather surprised that I did not hear Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle refer to that either. For years I have listened to the Liberals talking about the need to provide incentives to lower and middle income earners. Here we are introducing a lower tax rate, but, regrettably, no mention has been made of it. The tax cuts in the Budget have been structured so that the largest proportionate reductions are available to the lowest income families. The figures show very clearly that people in the lowest tax bracket receive the largest reduction-17 per cent-in the total tax burden. The tax cut on incomes up to $28,000 is $7.60 weekly. On my calculations that is equivalent to about a 4 per cent money wage rise for the Australian work force. I think that is a fairly impressive result in one Budget. One thing which distinguishes this Government's policies from those of the previous Government is that we have structured the tax changes so that the highest income earners get a lower tax reduction than lower and middle income earners. That can clearly be seen from the tax tables. Under the previous Government, when tax alterations were made to personal income tax the biggest reductions typically went to those at the very top of the income scale. I should refer to some very important side effects of the new 25c in the dollar tax rate. For example, it means that the dependent spouse rebate, about which we have heard so much this afternoon, will free more and more taxpayers from an income tax liability. On my calculations, earners of incomes of up to $8,700 a year who claim the dependent spouse rebate will no longer be taxed. Last financial year the figure was $8,000. That is a quite significant reduction in tax liability for those lower income families. I also refer to the effect of the 25c in the dollar tax rate in enhancing the value of the $250 pensioner tax rebate, which means that pensioners with other incomes will now be able to go to a much higher income level before they pay tax. This Budget, in addition to making the alterations in tax rates, provides new tax rebates for people receiving sickness and unemployment benefits. These rebates-$50 for a single beneficiary and $75 for a married couple-should result in most beneficiaries no longer paying income tax. The Budget also provides a very big boost to the living standards of lower income Australian families by increasing the threshold for the Medicare levy. The threshold for that one per cent levy for a married couple will be raised from $11,141 to $11,803. This is a very significant increase meaning that many lower income families will no longer pay income tax. I was very interested in a claim by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle this afternoon that the Budget provides for a 23 per cent rise in income tax collections. She then went on to link that figure to somebody on average weekly earnings. Of course the 23 per cent figure is in the Budget, but it refers to total tax collections which includes tax collections from a range of non-pay-as- you-earn taxpayers. I simply refer to farmers and people on professional incomes . Farmers are, of course, paying more tax in total this year simply because of the ending of the drought and the fact that they have higher incomes. As a result of the end of the recession in this country a number of non-pay-as-you- earn taxpayers such as professional people will also be paying more tax because they will be receiving far higher incomes. Neither, did I hear any reference to the new prescribed payments tax which is contributing enormously to that particular item in the Budget. So let us have no more of this nonsense regarding pay-as-you-earn taxpayers or those on average weekly earnings paying 23 per cent more tax. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, went through a number of initiatives taken in the social security area of the Budget. I was very pleased that the Budget focused the increases social security spending on the neediest members of the community. In total, the discretionary increase in social security spending over and above the normal increases resulting from indexation, from price increases, is some $680m in a full year. When that is added to the reductions in income tax the total cost to revenue is $2,800m in a full year. Clearly, this means very substantial changes in the cash flow of the Government and a very substantial improvement in the circumstances of ordinary Australian families. There are a number of increases in social security benefits. The standard pension rate is increased by $2.50 a week, and by $4.20 a week for a married couple. There have been further increases in unemployment and sickness benefits but, particularly, there has been increased social security spending on families in the greatest need. I refer to sole parent families and households which are renting in the private market. The figures are quite substantial-$2 a week more for each child of a pensioner bringing the figures up to $14 a week; an increase in the mother's or guardian's allowance for sole parents up to $10 a week; and an increase by 50 per cent to $15 a week in the maximum supplementary rental assistance. Overall it is possible to calculate that since this Government was elected the actual increase in benefit to people renting in the private market who are on the pension and have two children is some $30 a week, or 25 per cent. Clearly, this is a very large increase in benefits available to lower income families. Clearly, there has been no disastrous impact on average families as a result of the Hawke Government policies. I will look ahead for a moment and refer to some of the forecasts made in the current Budget. For example, it is anticipated that in the course of this financial year another 150,000 people will be employed in Australia. That will mean increased economic welfare not only for them but also for their dependants. As the Minister for Social Security outlined in Question Time today, there will be a reduction in the average number of Australians receiving the unemployment benefit-from 620,000 last financial year to 570,000 this year. Clearly, there will be an improvement in the economic welfare of those Australian income earners and the dependants whom they support. The Budget statement showed a provision also for a slight rise in real average earnings this year. Earnings will increase at a slightly faster rate than prices, which will mean a better economic position for the average Australian. It is very hard to work out the particular families and income groups in the community about which the Opposition is really talking. Opposition senators cannot be talking about the people who have recently obtained jobs-the 230,000 Australians who have become employed under this Government-because those people have received a tremendous improvement in their economic welfare and circumstances. Opposition senators cannot be talking about the dependants of those people. They cannot be talking about the people who are unemployed, because the Budget has very clearly provided extremely large increases and benefits to that group. The Opposition cannot be referring to other social security beneficiaries because, clearly, the Budget has provided substantial improvements in benefits and pensions. By November, the standard rate of pension will have gone up by $14 .65 or 19 per cent. Are Opposition senators referring to those heads of families who are in the work force and have jobs but are on low incomes? I referred to the fact that a 25c in the dollar tax rate has been introduced in the Budget. The Liberal Party could not do any better than a 30c in the dollar tax rate. Clearly, the Opposition cannot be talking about income earners in the work force who are at the very bottom of the income scale. That group has benefited from the lifting of the Medicare levels, so Opposition senators surely cannot be talking about them. The Opposition should come clean and tell us about which families and income groups it is talking. Opposition senators have been very vague in framing the matter of public importance and condemning Labor's taxation and social security policies, but they should come clean on this matter. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.42) —Senator Maguire has left us with a challenge to say about which groups we are talking in this matter of public importance. I rise with a great deal of pleasure to support my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in putting forward this matter of public importance, which states: The disastrous impact upon Australian families of the Hawke Labor Government's taxation and social security policies. I shall turn to some of Senator Maguire's remarks, since he has issued the challenge to show about which families we are talking. I do not have to look very far, because I can turn to yesterday's edition of the Age which provides us with a report by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, demonstrating the change in incomes of families below the poverty line. The article compares the position in November 1982, when the Fraser Government was in power, with the projected position in November 1984 under the current Hawke Labor Government. The article refers to a married couple with two children whose income, with pensions and allowances, in November 1982 was $161.55. That income was acknowledged then to be 8.6 per cent below the poverty line, as described by Professor Henderson. That figure can be compared with the income for that couple of $194.05 in November 1984 under the Hawke Labor Government. The income has declined to 9.4 per cent below the poverty line. It is true that the size of that group of families will decrease by 1.2 per cent compared with the situation in November 1982 during the last period of office of the Fraser Government. Can Senator Maguire stand up in the chamber to defend his Government's record against that kind of nonsense? I am talking not about figures cooked up by the Liberal Party or any other politically interested body but about figures from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, which is a well respected Anglican organisation working among the poor in Melbourne. Senator Maguire is apparently oblivious to or ignorant of that group. The figures that I have cited are confirmed in other parts of the article. I do not ask Senator Maguire to use even that kind of background to put down a rational argument; I ask him merely to use his common sense. In the last Budget, single pensioners received an increase of $2.50 a week from this magnanimous and generous Government. Leaving aside any question of income tax or any other factor and merely looking at what the average family has lost by way of increased excises on fuel, daily necessities and other goods, we find that during the past 12 months those people have lost $1.92 of that $2.50, leaving them with only 58c. We must then consider the fact that the Government rationalised its decision to introduce that $2.50 gain because the consumer price index had been fiddled by the introduction of Medicare-a deliberate action by the Hawke Labor Government to reduce the apparent cost of inflation. This magnanimous Government has come along and said: 'We shall compensate the pensioners for the loss of that benefit .' The Government, therefore, said: 'Look, here is $2.50 to help you out.' I think that the real loss was $2.15. In fact, people in those circumstances have gained 35c compared with the medi-fiddle loss. That is the position without, of course, taking into account the excise cost of $1.92. The average pensioner family in that category has lost at least $1.57 of its income 15 months ago. Senator Maguire tells us that that category of person is, in fact, better off. I wish Senator Maguire would apply to the facts of life a little more common sense , rather than academic economic knowledge, than he put forward in his remarks. During the previous election campaign the Government consistently said that it would be helping low income families. I have positively demonstrated in the past three or four minutes that the direct opposite is the case. Let us consider one or two other promises to help families that the Government put forward during the election campaign. The Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) might remember this promise in the Australian Labor Party policy document issued before the election. It states: While Labor is committed to the maintenance of family allowances, our first priority must be to low income families. The most immediate need here is for reform of the absurdly restrictive family income supplement proposed in the last Budget. This will be done by relaxing the income test so that the supplement is reduced by only 25c for each extra dollar of family income, rather than the present 50c. This will ensure that eligibility is extended into a much wider range of lower and middle incomes. Of course, nothing has happened about that. The Labor Party made a specific promise to help that same group of low income families about whom I just spoke. What about family allowances? The Labor Party said that it would restore the real value of family allowances. A comparison of the figures for March 1983 and the projected figures for June 1985 shows that there will have been a 10.4 per cent decline in the real value of family allowances. Senator Grimes —What was the decline from the time you came to Government to the time you left-50 per cent? Senator MESSNER —The Minister's only defence is to look at the past. He will not examine himself; he will not examine the mote in his own eye; he will not look at the issues which are before the people and which are worrying the people of Australia. He is not concerned about those matters at all. There is a very real concern in this community, and it goes right to the heart of family life. I refer to the question of people's homes. Over the last few years many people have bought homes at what must be acknowledged as fairly expensive prices. Many have been encouraged to enter into very long term and very highly geared financial arrangements for the purchase of their homes. Of course, one of the effects of that is to reduce the capacity of people to meet their repayments from their ordinary incomes. In 1982 the Fraser Government introduced a tax rebate for housing loan interest and that rebate contributed greatly to the success of people being able to maintain their own homes at a time of rising interest rates. But in May 1983, two months after the election of the Hawke Labor Government, the tax rebate was removed. For the average family this meant a loss of something between $10 and $20 a week. The Minister for Social Security shakes his head. However, the point is that many people were induced to purchase houses on the basis that the housing loan tax rebate would be taken into account in such a way that would enable them to meet their obligations. What has happened with the removal of that rebate? I can take the Minister to the western parts of Sydney-Mount Druitt and St Clair-where houses are being sold by families because they cannot meet their repayments. One of the reasons for this is that the Government changed the housing loan interest rebate and thus reduced people's incomes by $10 to $20 a week; they cannot meet their repayments. Senator Grimes —Fair go! Senator MESSNER —Again the Minister refuses to acknowledge the facts and this happens to be a fact of life with the Minister. He refuses to face up to real life. He should go to Mount Druitt and talk to the people there. Senator Grimes —I go to Mount Druitt. They see me more than they will ever see you. Senator MESSNER —I am glad I did not see the Minister there. The situation is that people are losing their homes as a result of that kind of action, ill- considered and ill-thought through. It has been taken without taking into account the situations into which people get themselves. It is an academic and dogmatic approach to the situation. That, of course, is the hallmark of this Government. For those reasons we again see an attack on family life in this country, the very basis of what the Australian Labor Party previously claimed was one of its most cherished objectives to foster. Let us look at what has happened, in summary, to the average family in the last 12 or 15 months. The first point we have to acknowledge is that people have suffered a tax loss of some $22 a week over the last 12 or 15 months. The Government has come in with its latest Budget and trumpeted tax decreases for all ranging from $7.60 a week, down to $2.70 a week for those earning above $700 a week. Pensioners are not too impressed with the fact that they get $2.50 from this Government while people earning $700 a week get a tax cut of more than $2. 70. For that reason this Government stands condemned. But let us look at the question of how much people have lost in net terms, a loss of some $22 nominally last year compared with a tax cutback or handback this year of some miserly $7. 60 a week. So people are worse off by at least $15 a week compared with the situation they were in when the Fraser Government lost power in March 1983. Let us examine some of the things that were promised but have not happened. Probably the most significant promise that the Minister, Senator Grimes, has made is that pensioners should not be forced to suffer taxes on their pensions to the degree that may have previously applied. That was one of the promises he made before the election. I believe he stated that in a Press release on 8 August 1982, before the election but I leave that aside. In 1982-83 a single pensioner, earning $20 a week over and above his pension, paid $20 a year in tax. In 1983- 84 he paid $24 in tax. This year the figure is $109. That figure has been calculated by the Parliamentary Library and is available as a public document. Again, it shows the paucity of Senator Maguire's study and understanding of the issues. Obviously it is clearly not in the interests of the very people whom he was claiming to represent. For all of those reasons, I support very strongly the matter of public importance which has been brought forward by my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It is about time the Government faced up to facts and started to learn what is happening in the real world rather than in his ivory tower, in the Cabinet room. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.56) —Because of time constraints and because at a later date I desire to present to the Senate in greater detail some facts and figures in relation to this whole area of the family, I will be brief. I do not enter this debate in any partisan sense and I do not wish my contribution to be entirely on the side of the Opposition. What I do wish to do is state a few facts which I hope both parties will take into account particularly at this time when we are considering options for the platforms of the next election. Last Sunday happened to be Fathers Day but I consider that the mothers of this country have not had a fair deal from the Budgets over at least the last five years. Obviously mothers, and I speak here about the various roles of the mother , are the physical preservers of life and the moral providers of truth but in addition to that the mother's skills are very many. I ask honourable senators to consider for a moment how one would devise a newspaper advertisement for a carer or housekeeper to care for one's children. What part of the positions vacant column would one use-teacher, nurse, welfare worker, psychiatrist, counsellor, dressmaker, accountant, dietician, chauffeur, cleaner? All of those skills come to mind. There can be no price tag on the unbounded love of mothers but do we collectively acknowledge the distinguished status of motherhood? I do not think we do. Individually we may, but successive Budgets have not recognised the contributions that mothers make, even the financial contributions, to the gross domestic product of this nation. Indeed, the value of the unpaid work of a mother is not contained in the gross domestic product figures. This is of concern. Their work ought to be recognised. In some way it had been recognised by the implementation of a new scheme of family allowances in 1976 whereby the taxation deduction which was available to the taxpayer in respect of his or her children was abolished and the money saved was put into family allowances. I praised that, because the money was going to the mother; it was not really going to the taxpayer. In most cases the taxpayer was the father. In this way it was taking the money out of the father's back pocket and putting it into the mother' s purse. I said on that occasion: 'Whilst that is a good idea, let us hope that it is not a three-card trick'. In order to maintain the situation of the one- income family at that time, it would have been essential to ensure that the family allowances were indexed. The plain fact of the matter is that the family allowances have not been indexed. Therefore, what occurred in 1976 was a real confidence trick on the one-income families in Australia. I am particularly concerned about low income families, but I am concerned about all families, particularly those getting to the poverty line; not only those who are under the poverty line but those who are getting to it. I have promised to be very brief, but I should like to repeat what was told to me by Kevin Cairns. In the survey he had analysed for the travel industry, it was clearly demonstrated that travel and holidays by family groups had dramatically declined over recent years. That, if anything, would be an indicator of how one-income families with children are getting on. The first thing people do if they are feeling the pinch is to say to mum and the kids: 'I am sorry; we cannot go off on holiday this year'. The facts are there in a totally unrelated survey, and I am quite happy to give the Government or the Opposition the details of that survey. Because of the failure to index family allowances, a family with three children is now $519.60 a year worse off than they were in 1976. In order to support that viewpoint, Mr Deputy President, I seek leave for the incorporation in Hansard of a chart prepared by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Statistics Group on family allowance, which sets out the loss that has been incurred by the failure to index family allowances since 1976. Leave granted. The chart read as follows- COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP Family Allowance ($ per month) Estimated at May 1976 Existing (a) May 1984 (b) Loss (c) First child 15.20 22.80 33.00 10.20 Second child 21.70 32.55 47.15 14.60 Third child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fourth child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fifth and subsequent children 30.35 45.55 65.90 20.35 (a) Actual rates as at May 1984. (b) Rate from May 1984 if May 1976 rates had been indexed by movements in the Consumer Price Index. (c) Difference between Estimated and Existing rates. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator HARRADINE —I thank the Senate. It may be said that not all families are one-income families and not all families have children. That is true, but the situation is that most families come within that definition at some time; not if one just takes a snapshot of the whole situation, but at some time they go through that situation. It is that stage of the family's development, when they are nurturing children, that they are finding most difficult. I appeal to the Government and to the Opposition that when they are considering their proposals, which they will naturally consider to put to the people, to have regard to this situation, and that, as a matter of social justice and common sense, they should recognise that families are feeling the pinch in the current economic climate, that many families can no longer survive on one income, and that the necessary but unwanted second job is taken, creating strains on the family and pressures on employment. About that subject I shall speak later, but, in view of the time, I do not intend to proceed any further now. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.05) —I rise to speak on what I can only describe as the bizarre language in Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's matter of public importance. It seems to me that the evidence available to us all of what average Australians think of what the Hawke Government has done for them ought to reinforce the term 'bizarre' when describing this motion. The surveys commissioned privately by the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia, those published in our major newspapers, be they by McNair Anderson or by Morgan, all show a return of confidence and of hope in the future for all Australians. Even those surveys commissioned by business organisations have continually shown that business confidence is on the up and that business investment is returning. No doubt the Opposition will have noted the tremendous improvement in private investment so noticeable in the last quarter. In the end, my opinion on whether or not this motion is bizarre is probably not at the heart of the matter. The ultimate arbiters, those best qualified to judge what the Hawke Government has or has not done for Australian families, are the Australian people. They will have their opportunity, in what the Prime Minister has said will be a comparatively short period, to pass judgment. I have no doubt whatsoever that, when that judgment is passed, the Hawke Government will be returned with the biggest majority since Federation. I turn to some of the specifics. I really do not know how we can be accused of having a disastrous impact on Australian families when, in just 18 months in government, 270,000 jobs have been created, compared with 240,000 Australians thrown on the scrapheap during the last year of the Fraser-Howard seven years. Average workers have had $30 a week so far from regular wage indexation. Medicare has meant that the average family is paying up to $10 a week less for their health insurance. Most importantly for families, the first home owners scheme has so far helped 130,000 Australians into their first home. Once they are in that home, they and all other Australians who are paying off home mortgages are finding that lower housing interest rates mean very considerable savings for them. With money market trends over the last couple of days, because of this Government's management of the economy, further housing interest rate falls are on the way. Already people would be paying $22 per month less on a $30 ,000 mortgage than they were when the present Government came to office. I suppose the thing that really counted during the Fraser years, the thing the Labor Party took on with such gusto in 1980 and carried right through to its victory in 1983, was just how much prices for ordinary food items were increasing and how much housewives, in particular, noticed the decline in their living standards. Under this Government, in under 18 months inflation has dropped from 11.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent. We have roughly halved inflation in a very short period. That is what Australians notice. That is what they believe this Government is doing properly. That is why, as I say, we shall be returned with such a huge majority very shortly. Let us look, too, at the Opposition's claim, that 'fact' conceived in some Peacockian nightmare, about the mythical average Australian being $22 a week worse off. Those of us who have been sending out search parties for this mythical Australian have so far been unable to find him. In the last few days the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has released a document which put the lie to this claim. It showed that between November 1982, which was when the last Fraser- Howard tax cut came into being, and November 1984, when our tax cut becomes effective, workers on $370 a week will have increased their real disposable income by $21 per week. That does not include things such as the first home owners grant, which puts it up even further. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred to these tax cuts of the Labor Government being in some way unreal. She said that the $7.60 tax cut is, for most Australians, in some way phoney. Nothing of course could be further from the truth. These tax cuts will cost $1.3 billion this year and $2.1 billion next year. That is double what we would have done if we had stuck with the idea of simple tax indexation, which even now would cost only $1.2 billion in a full year. We have also increased the progressivity of the tax scales. The former Government's policies of indexation inevitably-as was usual with a party like the Liberal Party-were so inclined towards those who are doing well in our community that they would have given the biggest tax cuts to those with the biggest incomes. The present Government has resisted that course and, instead, has awarded the biggest tax cuts to those on lower and middle incomes. That is something of which this Government can be justifiably proud. In dealing with tax cuts, let us examine the record of Mr Howard in his bleak years as Treasurer. His last so-called tax cuts in 1982 were taken away from us by some sleight of hand almost before they were received. In the same Budget there was an increase of $1.4 billion in indirect taxes. The former Government gave with one hand and took away with the other. But, more importantly, where its policies became famous-or should I say infamous-was at the time of the tax cuts in the 1977 Budget. One recalls the election campaign with the famous fistful of dollars which was held just after that Budget. Mr Howard and Mr Fraser were able to say: 'Ring us up and we will tell you how much tax cut you will get'. Then in 1978 they took the tax cuts away by slapping on a tax surcharge. I think most of us would believe that they spent more money advertising the tax cuts than they ever gave away. Those two tax cuts were taken away faster than they were given. I do not take the attitude that everything the Opposition says is wrong and that it can get nothing right. The Opposition has persisted with the claim that the Labor Party promised tax cuts for 99 per cent of workers and failed to deliver on its promise. Of course that is true; we have given tax cuts to 100 per cent of Australian workers. In 1977 Malcolm Fraser stated in his election speech: We have ended the big tax rip-off . . . And we have reduced taxes, restored incentive and fair reward for achievement. I draw the attention of the Senate to those quotations because they sound very much like the advertisements that are now appearing on television from Andrew Peacock promising: 'Labor will tax you, Liberals will encourage you'. The Fraser Government became the highest taxer of any government in Australia's history. Between 1975-76 and 1981-82 the tax burden for wage earners increased by 148 per cent while their incomes increased by only 198 per cent. In the area of tax avoidance, here in this Senate Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and those who have spoken in this debate against the Government's record ignore the fact that tax avoidance has so far cost the nation $300m-money that could well have been spent on sorting out some of the problems of pensioners and others. Time prevents my going into too much detail on this matter but in respect of pensions we have heard much about the poverty line. It would seem to me that the only indisputable figure that we can work on when looking at how pensions have been affected by the Hawke Government is average weekly earnings. That is the benchmark used by pensioners' organisations. By 1982 pensions had fallen to 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. When Labor left office in 1975, pension rates were 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. They are already back to 23 .8 per cent and the Government is committed to getting pensions up to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I turn to unemployment benefits. Mr Fraser said that he would be generous to those who could not get a job and who wanted to work. That turned out to be the sickest joke of the Liberal years. The Fraser Government only once increased unemployment benefits for those under 18, and in that time the benefit had lost 79 per cent of its value. However, it does not stop Andrew Peacock from going on air and claiming: 'Liberals will encourage you. Labor will tax you-and that's the difference'. The difference is in the Liberal tax policy-for the simple reason that the Liberals do not have a tax policy and Labor does. The Liberals do not have a tax policy because they cannot agree on one. Mr Howard is on record as favouring a broadly based consumption tax. Mr Peacock is not on record as favouring anything in respect of a specific in the taxation field. But Mr Howard and Mr Peacock in light of their claims that they favour substantial personal income tax cuts and a reduction in the deficit, should answer three questions: What new items are they to tax? On what items are they to increase tax? And what programs are they to cut to pay for the tax cuts? Until they have replied to those questions, I do not believe they should be talking on these matters at all. In case it is thought I have a jaundiced view, I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald: While Mr Peacock does indicate that his Government would increase indirect taxes, nowhere in his notably vague reply to the Treasurer's Budget speech is there any indication of what programs would be cut to reduce the deficit and accommodate his promises. . . . . In places Mr Peacock's attack on the Government's economic policy is blatantly dishonest. . . . . And while vague promises of fair and balanced policies have been winning local government elections for years, they hardly suffice as the economic policy of a prospective Prime Minister. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The two hours provided for discussion of a matter of public importance has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —For the information of honourable senators, I table documents relating to the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration. These comprise transcripts of the inquiry conferences, documents listed in appendices E and F of the inquiry and departmental papers concerning the making of the declaration and leading to the establishment of the inquiry. Given the volume of papers, a limited number of copies is available. Copies have been lodged with the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. Separate copies have been made available to the Leader of the Opposition in this place (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and Senator Harradine. Honourable senators will notice that there is some correspondence with Mr Black referring to him one of the tabled papers following completion of his inquiry. Mr Black advised that it would not have been likely to affect his findings in any way had it been made available earlier. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the eighth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Amendment Bill 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 dated 5 September 1984. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present the report relating to the construction of a submarine warfare systems centre, HMAS Watson, South Head, New South Wales. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator FOREMAN —by leave-The submarine warfare systems centre performs an important role in support of the Royal Australian Navy submarine force. Besides training submarine personnel in the use of sophisticated submarine weapons systems, the centre is also involved in the development of submarine tactics and combat system software. The centre has been located at South Head in Sydney harbour since 1980. It has operated from two separate buildings which have demonstrated to be unable to accommodate adequately both staff and equipment. The proposal endorsed by the Committee is to construct a purpose-designed facility to consolidate the functions of the centre. The design, as well as fulfilling naval requirements, has the added benefit of enhancing the Sydney harbour skyline. It is a low profile building which will replace a visually prominent building. As part of our inquiry we inspected HMAS Orion, one of the Navy's Oberon-class submarines. I pay tribute to the personnel of the RAN Submarine Squadron. Their living and working accommodation is extremely cramped, but it appeared to the Committee that the personnel involved bear these difficulties in a manner which is indicative of their professional dedication. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the statement and papers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.22) —The Senate is being given this first opportunity, and a very limited opportunity at that, to commence some debate on the Government's Budget. I think it would be fair to say , and most people would agree, that this Budget has been built around and, indeed, built for an early election. It is a Budget which, in my view, should be judged in that light. It is important to do so because it is a Budget which in many respects is dishonest. It is a Budget which is certainly dangerous for the economic stability of Australia. It has to be judged against the Governments rush to an election, a rush which is now clear after only 18 months of the Hawke Government. I remind the Senate that in this area, as in so many areas, the Hawke Government has proved to be a government whose word cannot be accepted. There is nothing clearer than Mr Hawke's expressed view about when the elections should be held. If one goes back to 1980 one finds Mr Hawke saying very clearly on the Australian Broadcasting Commission AM program: . . . I take the view that governments should run their full term. He maintained the same view a couple of years later when, in response to a question from Mr Schildberger, he said: There won't be any question of what's best for the electorate and what's obviously best for the electorate is that the Parliament run its full term, its full course . . . We take the view that the government should run its full term. We have said that. The latter was a comment Mr Hawke made to Derryn Hinch. He really spread himself around and made his view very clear. A little later, in October 1982, again while he was a shadow Minister in the Opposition, he told Mr Schildberger: My view and the view of the Labor Party and as Bill Hayden has consistently expressed is that Parliaments should run their full term. And I don't think Bill or any of us would have shifted from that. In the same interview he went on to say: That is the view I have consistently expressed and generally has been expressed by the Party. Our position is firstly that Parliaments ought to run their full term. I suppose that one might have thought that, on disposing of his mate Bill, who is referred to in the quotations, and his accession to the Labor leadership, perhaps Mr Hawke had a change of heart. But we find that when, as Leader of the Labor Party, he was running for the office of Prime Minister he made it quite clear during the election campaign that his view remained unchanged. He was quoted in the Melbourne Sun-News Pictorial on 15 February 1983 as saying: Under my government, parliaments will run their full time. I suppose that there may be one person left in Australia who believes that the Hawke Government will allow the Parliament to run its full term. That one person is perhaps one of the parents of Mr Hawke who would believe that he might keep his word. But I do not think that any more people would believe that Mr Hawke was prepared to abide by the words he so often expressed during 1982 and 1983. The fact is that we have a rush to an early election, an election which is predicted to take place about 20 months after the Hawke Government took office. Why should the Government be getting in for an early election? I suggest that there are two major reasons. The first is that it has a hidden agenda-an agenda for Australia which it is not prepared to produce until it holds an election and wins another term in office. It believes that if it produces that agenda it will significantly reduce its chances of regaining office. There are issues such as the very difficult question of what taxes, if any, are to be imposed on capital. Taxes on capital are a difficult issue. It is quite clear-the Government is quite overt-that that issue is postponed until the next Parliament. The Government makes the assumption of re-election. It makes the assumption that a tax on capital is an issue which can be simply taken off the agenda and hidden from the Australian people in the meantime. On the issue of the extent to which the Commonwealth Government will impose its views regarding various matters on the States, the Government has held off because it does not want to buy a fight before an election. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) came into this place and said without apparent embarrassment that there would be no human rights legislation. It appeared in his timetable for reform but it would be put off until after an election. Of course, with respect to the very difficult political question of Aboriginal land, a question where the Government in theory is prepared to move nationally against the wishes of the Australian people, I have certainly made direct attempts to obtain from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) an undertaking that he is prepared to disclose his hand in that area before an election. He has been notably coy in his response. So there is a series of policy matters which press upon the Government perhaps because some elements within the Government would like to see change and progress. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), for example, would like to pursue a capital gains tax and various taxes on capital. But, of course, all of that has to be put out of sight until there is an election. More seriously there is the problem of how long the economic recovery, which Australia has enjoyed in part, can be prolonged. It appears that Australia faces real economic difficulties. Although things clearly have improved at the moment, the question is: How long will that improvement last? I do not wish to be a prophet of doom. I simply draw the Senate's attention to the fact that many respected observers are casting doubts about the economic future under the regime which is being pursued by this Government. I noted the other day that the Confederation of Australian Industry expressed doubts that economic recovery was , in fact, taking place. The Confederation claimed that real growth in the Australian economy is being clouded by the statistical discrepancy between income-based and expenditure-based estimates. In other words, if one looks at the different ways in which growth is measured, one gets very conflicting pictures of what growth is, in fact, occurring. Recent statistics released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that aggregate manufacturing production fell in the June quarter for the first time since the March quarter in 1983. In addition to that, a very sobering matter for Australia is the fact that commodity prices have remained low despite the general upturn in the world economy. We face a situation where, unlike previous world recoveries, the commodities which Australia trades have not seen a strengthening of their prices. There are potential problems for this country in terms of our world trade and of that very large aspect of our economy which depends upon commodity transactions and sales. The Government, in the Budget documents which were tabled in this place a few weeks ago, certainly acknowledges that considerable uncertainties face Australia . I refer to the Budget Papers, in which a series of points are made with which, with great respect, I agree. The Budget Papers state: Looking ahead, there are considerable doubts about the strength and durability of the world recovery and concern that, within Australia, another year of strong growth in activity and profits might place considerable pressure on both the wage-restraint and other aspects of the Accord. Those words occur under the heading 'Uncertainties'. We find an expression of concern about whether growth in the United States can be maintained, and what the impact would be of a slowing in United States growth or a large depreciation of the United States dollar. We find a reference in the Government's own documents to the problem of commodity prices to which I have already referred. I think most importantly the Budget Papers acknowledge the importance of the accord to the Government's economic predictions and the dangers that the accord may not hold, given the perception amongst trade unions that the economy has improved and that the profit-share in the economy has changed. Even in the Government's own assessment there is an area of uncertainty about the future and the Opposition believes that those areas of uncertainty are real and ought to have been of concern to the Government and ought to have been factors which had a very strong influence over the way the Government drew this Budget. In fact, the Government was handed an unusual chance to put down a Budget for stability. The fact of the matter is that the Government had the good fortune to take office at the bottom of the economic cycle. We recently had a very frank admission from a senior Minister in the Government-the Finance Minister, Mr Dawkins-about why economic recovery had occurred. Mr Dawkins is quoted as saying: Some would say that the Government's policies have yet to be tested, when allowance is made for the fact that the Government came into office at the bottom of a recession, riding on the coat tails of the previous Government's wage pause initiative and at a time when the rural sector was about to swing into a boom year. I would have to acknowledge that circumstances have been favourable. It is not merely Opposition rhetoric to say that the Government has had the benefit of economic growth which has occurred because of the ending of the drought, the Fraser Government's wage pause and the generally favourable world situation compared with that a couple of years previously. We have a situation in which, on the face of the Budget Papers themselves, the Government was handed a very real opportunity to do something substantial to improve the stability of the Australian economy. Because of the one-off surge in tax revenues, caused substantially by the rural recovery, revenues for the Government are up by 10.5 per cent in real terms in this Budget. That is something about which I will talk in more detail a little later. The view that I was to express in this speech today is a view which I found, somewhat to my surprise, expressed in the same terms in the most recent edition of Syntec. I think any honourable senator, and indeed, anyone else who has been reading the publication Syntec over the last year will not have classified it as a harsh critic of the Government's economic policies. Rather I think Syntec has given a generally favourable response to the Government's approach. However, we find in the post-Budget document, issued on 3 September, a series of statements which I think encapsulate the difficulties which the Government has presented to Australia because of its Budget. I will quote a number of passages from that publication. It states: . . . the Government has chosen to take advantage of a distinctly cyclical surge in its revenues to add to the structural (non-cyclical) element of the Federal Budget deficit. It has done this on both the outlays and receipts side. Later the article states: As a result, the structural element of the deficit is now over 50% and the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement-while lower than in 1983-84-is still very high at 7% of G.D.P. Any marked recovery in private sector investment this year would quickly lead to friction between the public and private sector in capital markets, and rising interest rates. What the article is saying is that the Government, in a year in which there has been a surge of revenues, a one-off increase which will not be repeated next year, has used the surge of revenues to add to the future problems which Australia faces. The Government has used the surge of revenues to add to expenditure in a way that will commit it to similar volumes of expenditure in the future. The Government has built in for itself and for its successors in Government and, indeed, for the Australian people the difficulty that we are spending a higher amount through the government sector than the country can really afford. A little later in the same publication, under the heading 'More dangerous fundamentals', Syntec referred to the fundamental economic imbalances which have been holding Australia back. Syntec defined those as: . . . an excessive extension of the public sector's command over resources and an excessive share of National Income going to wages and other labour costs. A little later in the same document it was stated: The 1984-85 Budget actually worsens the public sector/private sector imbalance. I will paraphrase that by saying that what Syntec is pointing out is that the Government has chosen to use this Budget to enable it to spend an even higher proportion of what Australia produces than has ever been achieved before. In the same magazine it is stated: In the midst of a supposedly smoothly working Wages Accord, serious wage drift appears to be going on. The Government dismisses this as a statistical artifact, reflecting problems with some of the Statistician's wage series. In short, what is being pointed out is that in a quite fundamental way the Budget is worsening Australia's overall position. I think that is a matter which is of deep concern to all of us. It will certainly be a matter which will impact on the people of Australia in due course. In fact, the Government has squandered the opportunity that the breaking of the drought and other positive economic factors presented to it. Therefore we find during this so-called period of economic recovery that the Government predicts continuing high levels of unemployment in Australia-the maintenance of unemployment of somewhere around 9 per cent, a level which can scarcely be regarded as a satisfactory outcome for Australia and particularly for those many Australians who are unemployed. I shall refer briefly to the increase in revenue which the Government has obtained. I said a little while ago that that increase in revenue of about 10 1/ 2 per cent in real terms is the largest increase since the Second World War. In fact, Government revenue will go up by about $9,000m. Even though the Government will get that sort of increase, about $9,000m, from the present Budget it will be able to reduce the deficit by only about $1,300m. That means the great bulk of the increased revenue is being used simply to fund additional government expenditure. Of course, for the people of Australia there is some short term comfort in that. If the Government spends a great deal of additional money there are recipients of that money and so it seems very nice at the time. Of course, that very high level of expenditure necessarily underpins continuing very high levels of taxation. I will have a little more to say about that later. The Government had an opportunity as a result of the revenue surge to do something substantial about the deficit. The government has chosen to nibble at the edges of it and has chosen to dissipate the recovery simply by spending more of the taxpayers' dollar through the Government sector. To put it in a slightly different way, the Government is predicting that the Australian economy will continue to grow this year. The Government's prediction-the prediction which will eventuate if none of the difficulties I have referred to occur-is that we will get a growth of about 4 per cent. Government outlays are growing by about 6 per cent. Again, that is a simple indication of the fact that more and more of what Australia is producing is going to the Government rather than being controlled by the people of Australia. I think the most significant thing about the Budget is that it has confirmed the nature of the Government that we have in Australia. I thought a lot about the figures thrown up by the Budget and the figures which one can take to compare the way the Hawke Government has drawn its Budget with the way the Fraser and Whitlam governments drew their Budgets. I think we could say that the second Hawke Budget shows that Hawke is Whitlam writ small. He is a slightly more cautious Whitlam. I would say that what we have in Australia is a Whitlam government without Mr Whitlam's ideals. At least when Mr Whitlam became a profligate spender of other people's money, promoted a breakaway increase in the bureaucracy and increased taxation at an enormous rate he did so on the basis of some idealism. I think he really tried to do something to change Australia in a positive way. My sad conclusion is that in Mr Hawke, in this pygmy of a Whitlam, we have a man who shares only one characteristic-he changed his hairstyle to become Prime Minister. In other respects he is simply a big spending, big taxing Prime Minister who lacks any real idealism as to what this country might be or ought to be. I think he is there to maintain himself in government. I see no sign of the desire to do something positive for Australia that I think it was hoped he would deliver when he came into office. I have a table which was prepared in my office and which I think bears out the points I have just made about the commonality in the basic approach between the Hawke Government and the Whitlam Government. I will seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard, but I make it available to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), who is at the table, so that she can inspect it in case she has an objection to its being incorporated. I will refer to it while she examines it. The table shows in a number of respects what happened in the three Whitlam Budgets, what happened in the seven Fraser Budgets and what has happened in the two Hawke Government Budgets. Of course, Mr Whitlam was notable and lives in Australia's memory for both his taxation and expenditure achievements. I think it is commonly known that whilst Mr Whitlam was Prime Minister the Government of Australia spent 10 per cent more each year in real terms. In nominal terms it was a massively larger sum, about 28.9 per cent. In fact, every year of the Whitlam Government meant an increase of 10 per cent in real terms in government outlays. Under Mr Fraser there was a genuine attempt to restrain the growth of government. Under Mr Fraser we had an attempt to restrain the growth of government that many of us thought could have been more successful. Many of us were part of the Fraser Government and we saw the difficulties in restraining the growth of government expenditure, but we know that an honest effort was made to do so. We find there was a growth, in real terms, of 2.2 per cent over the life of the Fraser Government. We find in the first two Hawke Budgets a growth in real expenditure of 6.9 per cent each year; that is the average over the two years. Again, people say: 'So what?' What does it matter to me if the Government spends more and more of Australia's real resources each year? I simply say in response to that rhetorical question: The reality is that government can only spend other people's money. If government proceeds to take a larger and larger share of real resources year by year, that can only mean that the people of Australia have left to them less and less of the real resources of their own incomes. There is no escaping that high and rising government expenditures necessitate high and rising taxation. That brings me to the next column in my table which refers to the revenue which was raised by personal income taxes under the governments to which I have referred. Again, one would have to say that Mr Whitlam emerges the champion in these stakes. Under Mr Whitlam personal income tax went up in real terms at a rate of 11.7 per cent per year. In other words, personal income tax collections on individuals went up by 11.7 per cent a year. Under Mr Fraser there was an attempt, consistent with the attempt to restrain expenditure, to restrain the collection of tax and we still had real increases of 3.7 per cent. Under Mr Hawke, notwithstanding his so-called tax cuts, there is an increase of 7.6 per cent each year. So we get a return to the pattern of the previous Labor Administration. Of course, governments do not rely on income tax alone; governments also raise revenue by taxing other sectors of the economy. If we look at total tax, we find that Mr Hawke has actually managed to equal the record of Mr Whitlam. Mr Whitlam managed to raise total budget receipts by 6.1 per cent per year in real terms; Mr Fraser about halved that down to 3.4 per cent and dear old Mr Hawke has got it up to 6.1 per cent again. The reality that the Australian people face is that if a government is going to spend more and more, it is going to tax more and more. The reality which Mr Hawke has offered Australia in this Budget, notwithstanding his phoney tax cuts, is a reality that he is going to spend more and more and, therefore, the taxpayer will pay more and more. I seek leave to incorporate the table to which I have referred in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATES OF BUDGET SECTOR 1972-73-1984-85 (estimated) ($ million) Revenue (Personal Outlays Income Tax) (c) Total Budget receipts Deficit* Year Real (a) Nominal Real (b) Nominal Real (b) Nominal Real (b) Nominal Whitlam Government (3 budgets)- 1972-73 (Last McMahon Budget) 23,159 10,190 9,314 4,089 21,626 9,494 1,585 696 1975-76 (Last Whitlam Budget) 30,792 21,831 13,002 9,219 25,803 18,294 5,031 3 ,567 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 10.0% 28.9% 11.7% 31.1% 6.1% 24.4% +47.0% + 72.4% Fraser Government (7 budgets)- 1975-76 (Last Whitlam Budget) 30,792 21,831 13,002 9,219 25,803 18,294 5,031 3 ,567 1982-83 (Last Fraser Budget) 35,771 48,935 16,789 22,967 32,501 44,462 3, 270 4,473 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 2.2% 12.2% 3.7% 13.9% 3.4% 13.5% -6.0% +3.3% Hawke Government (2 budgets)- 1982-83 (Last Fraser Budget) 35,771 48,935 16,789 22,967 32,501 44,462 3,270 4 ,473 1984-85 (estimate) 40,903 63,948 19,437 30,388 36,589 57,203 4,314 6,745 Average Annual Growth Rate-%pa 6.9% 14.3% 7.6% 15.0% 6.1% 13.4% +14.9% +22.8% (a) constant 1979-80 prices as per Budget Paper No. 1. (b) constant 1979-80 prices using Implicit Price Deflator for Gross Non-farm Product and a 6.5% increase in 1984-85 as per Budget Paper No. 1. (c) Note in both Whitlam and Hawke Governments revenue from personal income tax rose at a much higher rate than total budget receipts, showing that individuals bore a disproportionate share of the increase under both governments. * Average size of Deficit as % of GDP for: 3 Whitlam budgets-3.17%; 7 Fraser budgets-2.3%; 2 Hawke budgets-3.8%. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. I suppose another simple way of illustrating the change which is occurring under Mr Hawke is to point out that the Government 's receipts-what it is taking from the people of Australia in taxes-are in 1984- 85, under this Budget, at the highest level since the Second World War and at the highest level, shown in the Budget Papers, of 27.9 per cent. In other words, for the whole gross domestic product of Australia, 27.9 per cent is being taken by this Government in taxation. Because it is borrowing and spending more than it is taxing, its outlays are more than that. Once again, we have a record established by the Hawke Government of Budget outlays, as a proportion of the gross domestic product, of over 31 per cent. Those figures mean little or nothing to the men and women of Australia. The reality that does mean something to the men and women of Australia is that those payments, those collections, are the burdens which government places on them and they are the burdens which can be paid only by the people of Australia. The Government has taken only easy decisions in this Budget. It has taken the easy decision of spending more. It is very interesting to find that, notwithstanding that early in the life of this Budget, on the day it was announced, there was some positive reception for it, it did not take very long for the realities of this Budget to sink through. A number of businessmen made very positive comments about the fact that the Budget appeared to them to be a good one. I can only conclude that they have not taken the trouble to check the aggregate figures to which I have referred. I must say from the Opposition's point of view, and I think from the point of view of the people of Australia again, that it is encouraging to find that a large number of commentators have analysed the Budget now and emerged highly critical of it. I suppose no one would accuse Mr Maximilian Walsh of being a partisan journalist; no one would accuse him of being an agent of the Opposition. It was interesting to find that in the Sydney Morning Herald of last Saturday in an article headlined 'The beginning of the end for the Hawke Government', we get a scathing attack on the wasted opportunity that this Budget represents for the Hawke Government and for Australia. I will quote very briefly from that article. Mr Walsh stated: . . . Hawke and Keating blew an opportunity in the Budget . . . Overnight they moved from being invincible to being opportunistic, expedient politicians. We find in that article-again, I do not wish to refer to it at length-a reference to the very real dangers which Australia faces, the dangers of economic instability. We find a very clear description of how this Government has chosen to spend its way into a position in which Australia will find economic management in the future very difficult. I suppose if I could summarise the sorts of criticisms which have been made by various writers it would be that the Government has really locked Australia into a position of continuing difficulty as far as economic management is concerned. What this Government has done is to lock us into a high expenditure, high deficit and high tax situation during a period when the Government is claiming economic recovery and when there has, in fact, been a series of indicators of economic growth. The questions that Australians have to ask is: What happens to them when the economic cycle turns, as indeed many people believe it is turning now? If the Government needs to borrow another $7,000m in this, the year of recovery, to balance its books, what will the Government have to do if there is a slide in the economy, if there is a problem with commodity trade and the other points which have been of concern and which have been expressed? Other points of concern have been expressed. So many fictions are put out. This Government has now borrowed $15,000m in two years of government just to try to balance its books. Senator Peter Rae —Eighteen months. Senator CHANEY —Eighteen months is the interjection from Senator Rae but, in fairness, I think it is meant to cover the Government in its second Budget. The highest deficit of the Fraser Government was a little over $4 billion during a year when there was a steep economic decline. Total deficits in seven years of Fraser Government-some would say this is too high-were about $17,000m. The Hawke Government has almost bested that in only two years. What room has it left for itself to move? What room has it left for the people of Australia to move if the economic cycle turns against Australia, as many believe it is turning now? I think the sad fact is that the points I am making are well known to the Government. I think they are well known to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, who is at the table. I think they are well known to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and to the Prime Minister. The simple fact is that this Government is prepared to sacrifice Australia's long term interests to its short term political interest in the belief that it will go to an election within a month or so of the Budget being dealt with in this Parliament and that it will try to reap a short term political benefit to the long term detriment of Australia. Senator Kilgariff —I move: That the honourable senator's time be extended. I understand that it is traditional for a Leader to be given an extension of time when replying. Senator CHANEY —The arrangement was that the Minister would move the motion. I do not know whether she intends to. Senator RYAN —I should clarify my position. I was not advised of any agreement, but if an agreement has been reached I am happy to maintain it. Perhaps we could have some indication of the time required for the extension of Senator Chaney's speech? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under the Standing Orders it would be for 15 minutes. I will assume it is to be extended for 15 minutes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY —It is faintly amusing that the normal traditions of this place which permit the Government to have an unlimited time to present its Budget and the Opposition to have an extended time to present a reply should not have been known to the Minister. It should not have required a break in my speech in that way. However, I do not expect very much courtesy from the Government. To return to the question of the Budget, I have talked very largely in terms of the broad impact of the Budget on Australia. I have done that on the basis that the impact on individuals is a function simply of their participation as individuals within the Australian economy. If one raises taxes generally they will have to be paid by the people of Australia. Of course, most of us see the Budget from our personal viewpoint. Most of us are concerned at how it impacts on us in an immediate personal sense. That is why, in this pre-election Budget, in this pre-election atmosphere, the Government places such emphasis on the question of tax cuts. Whilst Mr Hawke promised six million Australians tax cuts when Labor was elected and promptly broke that promise, on this occasion he has delivered adjustments to the pay as you earn tax scales which will result in apparent tax cuts for many Australians. I want to put a number of facts before the Senate now which give some indication of why so many commentators have described the Government's tax moves as a sham. Let me quote a number of people who were at a recent luncheon for economists in Melbourne recently. The article I refer to states: ''What tax cuts?'' said Dr John Marsden, chief economist at merchant banker Capel Court Corporation. ''The tax cuts are a fiddle,'' said Professor John Freebairn, from the Business Council of Australia. CRA economist, John McLeod, also criticised the 'tax fiddle'. I think there are some quite simple facts which the people of Australia will understand in the course of this year but which we, as an Opposition, would like them to understand now. The Government Budget figures show that something like one million Australians will move into a higher tax bracket during this year. The Government has changed the tax scale to introduce new tax scales which will result in one million Australians moving from one tax scale to another this year . Taxpayers on average weekly earnings will find themselves paying 46c in the dollar on their marginal dollars. I think most people would concede that that rate of tax is a ridiculous imposition on people on average weekly earnings. The calculations which have been done in my office, taken from the Budget Papers themselves, show quite clearly that the Government intends to collect from pay as you earn taxpayers $2,755m more than it collected last year. There will be $2 ,755m more in pay as you earn tax collections this year than there were last year. I have heard Labor Party speakers say: 'Yes, but that is because there are more people in employment. That is because the employment position has improved' . On the Government's own estimates the reality is that there will be an increase of only 3 per cent in the number of taxpayers in the year. That means that every pay as you earn taxpayer will average $8 a week extra. The collections of this Government from pay as you earn tax will be $8 per taxpayer per week more than they were last year. I put that figure as the simplest demonstration that this Government is collecting more not merely from the total of taxpayers but indeed from the individual taxpayers who make up the people of Australia. I want to make some quick reference to the treatment that has been afforded the resources sector in this Budget. The Government has put very few additional burdens on the resources sector in the Budget and it has made a couple of minor concessions. It has made a tax provision for exploration expenditure which will cost the Government something like $8m this year and it has also made a decision to permit group accounts. In other words, it has restored the provision which was introduced by John Howard and then discontinued by this Government when it came into office. I remind the Senate that the Government, in not announcing any increased burdens on the resource industries in this Budget, has done so on the basis that it had already imposed additional imposts on the resources sector last year. In fact, one of the distinctions which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) will bear to his grave is that he has become a Minister for the taxation of resource industries rather than a Minister for the development of Australia's resource industries. I believe that he will be remembered as the Minister who presided over the closing of more coal mines and the closing down of more oil exploration teams than any other Minister in Australia's history, Rex Connor notwithstanding. Honourable senators should remember what was done by the Government with respect to the removal of the so-called black holes, the irregularities in the excise table which applied to old oil, irregularities which we were working to remove when we were in government. The present Government continued our work but proceeded to mop up an extra $60m or $70m from the industry in the process. I remind honourable senators of tax that will raise an additional $312m this year which was imposed on Fortescue oil. I remind honourable senators of the Government's proposal to auction exploration rights through a tender system, which will result in a diversion of money into taxation instead of oil exploration. I also remind honourable senators of the Government's decision to allow the export of Australian oil, which is linked to the Government's maximising Australian production to maximise its tax take. I remind honourable senators of the failure of the Government to put the liquefied petroleum gas prices down by $50 a tonne earlier this year, thereby saving itself revenue and ultimately shielding the removal of a subsidy. We have a situation where the Government in this recent period the Government has announced a new tax on oil; a resource rent tax on offshore green fields. We now find a falling off of exploration for offshore oil. We now find that offshore oil drilling rigs are lying idle in Australian waters and we find that the predictions of the Opposition, and indeed of the industry itself, are being borne out. I can say only that the record of this Government over the past 12 months in plundering Australia's resource industries is but one of the many sorry stories which can be told about this Government's determination to maximise the tax take it extracts from Australia. There is only one other item on which I wish to touch and it is something of a light ending to my speech. I am very sorry that the Government has chosen to impose an excise on light beer. I should declare an interest in this matter. I certainly have no shares in the Swan Brewery but I am a Western Australian and I believe that the initiative of the Swan Brewery in producing a very low alcohol beer, with an alcohol rate of less than one per cent, was a very important step in encouraging sensible social behaviour and, in particular, in encouraging people who are driving to drink without having an excess of alcohol in their blood. I say very seriously, as the father of teenage sons, that I regarded that as a very sensible thing for the brewery to have done. I regard it as a very positive social measure. The fact that there was a price differential between that very light beer and those beers of even moderate strength was, I think, a quite important selling point. I regret that economic logic, which is what the Government claims in this case, has been allowed to override what I think was a very sensible social change. We saw the ludicrous situation in which sales of that beer were being blocked in New South Wales by other brewers. Thankfully, the New South Wales Government eventually moved to remove what was a ridiculous restriction on free enterprise. I believe that the Government should reconsider its economic logic and its new excise on very light beer. I think that if the market proves to be great other brewers will get into it, so I do not especially plead for the Swan Brewery, but on behalf of all those people who are concerned about the road toll, I make a plea to the Government that it remove that particular and very silly tax. I started off saying that this is a Budget for an election. It is a Budget which will guarantee continuing high employment and continuing high taxation in this country and it is a Budget which I do not believe will serve Australia's interests. I believe that the Government in this case, as in so many cases, has put its political interests before the national interest and I believe that in time it will be totally condemned for what it has brought down in this place within recent weeks. I hope that there will be a widespread realisation of the irresponsibility of the Government in this Budget, because I believe that for the public to be gulled by this dishonest document would be a very great tragedy for Australia. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.02) —A superficial examination of this Budget would give an impression that this is a Budget to satisfy all Australians . On closer examination one starts to recognise that this is a very superficial Budget. It leaves a great number of Australians dissatisfied and disenchanted. Probably the most significant number are those three million Australians who are on or under the poverty line. Included in that three million are 800,000 destitute children who have been abandoned by this Government with this Budget. Added to those people are, of course, the 634,000 unemployed who have been virtually ignored in this Budget. Also, we can count amongst the groups and individuals ignored those in small businesses and certainly the pensioners, who got no more than the Medicare rebate catch-up, despite the promise by the Australian Labor Party that they would receive 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I rate as underprivileged as a result of this Budget the farmers, particularly smaller farmers, and the families of Australia. I will demonstrate that in a moment as I just run through some of the effects that the Budget has had. Let us not paint a blacker than black picture, because obviously there are a number of quite valuable pluses in the Budget. They may have more to do with elections than with economic measures, nevertheless I think we need to recognise that the Government has done its best to satisfy the middle income earners of Australia. Perhaps that is because that is where the recognised swinging voters mostly tend to come from. The Government has also-this is a rather strange thing for a Labor government-very handsomely looked after big business and ensured that the protections of big businsses are maintained, frequently at the expense of small businesses. As one would expect, this Government has looked after the trade union movement right across Australia. Whilst there is a very positive reason for doing that-that is the maintenance of the prices and incomes accord-I think unions and particularly the higher earning trade unionists of Australia, have done far better out of this Budget than they should have expected. Unfortunately, they have done well to the detriment of many people who are much more deserving. Of course, this Budget-as so many Budgets before it have done, irrespective of the colour of the government of the day-has continued to satisfy those enjoying protection in this country. I do not think that it is a surprise Budget in any sense because the whole world knows that we are going to have an election later this year. So it had to be an appealing Budget to those in the middle income areas who were likely to change their votes if the Government got stuck into them with this Budget. It was no better and no worse a Budget and pre-election strategy than the old fistful of notes campaign that we had waged by the conservative party in government a couple of years ago. I think is is also fair to say that overall the Government has picked a fairly responsible deficit figure, no doubt under extreme pressure from the financial institutions around Australia. They were threatening, if this Government opted for a higher deficit, a deficit which could have enabled it to help the disadvantaged in Australia, to wage a massive campaign against the Government, accusing it of being irresponsible and allowing the deficit to blow out, in their terms. I believe that the Government has behaved quite responsibly in certain areas. I think it is fair to say that it has kept its promise on personal income taxes. It has kept the promises in terms of a responsible gift, particularly to low middle income earners, which has poured some money back into the economy and which should help to generate the economy and stimulate some spending, although not nearly as much as would have been the case if that money had gone direct to low income earners who pass that money straight into the economy. Nevertheless, the Government has kept its promise and has given the tax rebate which it promised in terms of the prices and incomes accord. A hazard accompanies this gift of personal income tax. I think all of us have recognised that it is a bit of a three card trick because the personal income tax rates do not change until 1 November. Of course, the next Budget will ensure that there will be further income tax changes-that has been promised to us already-because the whole tax structure will be reviewed by the Government. So nobody will enjoy those benefits that were painted in such glowing terms when this Budget was presented, and nobody will have a full fiscal year's benefit from the tax reductions that have been offered. I hope that people around Australia recognise that even in the current year they will get only a proportion of the tax cut which has been offered to them in the new rates and that depending on how their earnings vary over the year, they could find that in fact they are quite seriously disadvantaged rather than handsomely advantaged as a result of the tax cuts not starting until 1 November. Regrettably, the means used by the Government to offer personal income tax cuts disadvantaged those at the very lower end of the scale. That happened because the Government wanted to ensure that those on middle incomes received that benefit. As a result, the Government bought their votes. At the very least the Government could have indexed the threshold, but it did not even do that. Many economists have suggested that the Budget would have been much fairer if the Government had increased that threshold substantially and had ensured that those at the very bottom end really benefited from those tax cuts and that those at the top benefited much less. But no, the Government has opted for a new series of tax scales which will ensure that the middle income earners receive the maximum benefit. The Australian Democrats would have much preferred a progressive tax scale. In fact, we shall be putting to the Government, the Parliament and the people of Australia a new tax scale regime that goes right along a continuum starting from a much higher threshold and with a top marginal rate of 50 per cent. That would ensure that the income tax rates for all Australians are beneficial and would give them the opportunity to spend the money that they earn. It would ensure also that people are taxed in accordance with how they spend that money. In other words, the emphasis would be moved from personal income tax towards a consumption tax. The Australian Democrats applaud the Government's endeavours to get at tax avoiders. I and Senator Colin Mason supported the Government right down the line in every one of its measures to retrieve evaded bottom of the harbour tax, to get that money back into the system so that those who evaded their tax obligations at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers were brought to justice and made to pay the tax that they had avoided. Regrettably, the whole of the Senate did not support that legislation. I am sorry that honourable senators did not do so. I am sorry for two reasons. First, I believe that an important principle needs to be supported-that is, we should not allow people to avoid their taxes at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers. Secondly, if that legislation had been passed we would have allowed those who were unfairly caught up in the tax net of the Fraser bottom of the harbour legislation to have had access to an appeals tribunal. Under the Fraser legislation that access is denied to those people. I am pleased and proud to announce that the Australian Democrats' Bill to pick up tax avoiders under the cherry pickers scheme was passed by the Senate and is waiting for support in the House of Representatives. That is another tax avoidance measure which the Australian Democrats strongly supported and the Senate supported. It was instigated by the Australian Democrats. We have proposed also a piece of legislation to prevent tax avoidance schemes which would enable the Treasurer to give prior rulings. That legislation would have the effect of virtually wiping out for all time the tax avoidance industry, but at this stage that legislation has not passed through the Senate. The unemployed, those on pensions and those at the bottom end of the socio- economic scale have suffered at the hands of the Budget. This Budget virtually ignores the unemployed and, in fact, does little to help those on pensions. It is an interesting fact that the single pension increase is $2.50 a week and the tax cut for a person on $100,000 a year is $2.79 a week. What a gross injustice that is, and how it demonstrates the wooing of the middle and upper income brackets by the Government at the expense of low income earners. The effect of this Budget on a married couple on a pension with two children is that they are still $20 a week below the poverty line. A single person with one child is still $17 a week below the poverty line. The Government has retained the spouse rebate allowance, although it could have given to families across Australia a 50 per cent increase in family allowances and made that family allowance taxable in the hands of recipients. One would have expected a Labor Government to have gone in that direction. One cannot understand the rationale for a Labor Government retaining a spouse rebate when there is such a desperate need for families bringing up children to receive an increase in family allowance. That action is beyond my comprehension of what a Labor Government is on about, and, I am sure, is beyond the understanding of most people around Australia. What has happened to the unemployed as a result of the Budget and the Government's dereliction of its duty towards the unemployed? Sadly, the Government is continuing its predecessors' policy of using unemployment as an economic tool. That action becomes obvious when we see what has happened to the unemployed during the last few years of the previous Government and this one. Between 1978 and 1984 the average duration of unemployment has swollen from 24.6 weeks to 44.6 weeks. Between June 1983 and June 1984, the number in the 15-year- old to 24-year-old age group who had been unemployed for longer than one year increased from 25 per cent to 31 per cent. That is a tragedy for many people, and that tragedy has been ignored in the Budget. That tragedy must be addressed immediately by the Government and the Parliament-not in a couple of years time when the Government can get its act together. We gave the Government a year to come up with a responsible and responsive plan to solve the crisis of unemployment in this country, and the Government has blown that chance in this Budget. All that the Government has done has been to continue to apply band-aids over band-aids over band-aids. The current band-aid is the community employment program. That scheme is a means of getting somebody off the unemployment statistics for a few months and at the end of those few months-this is the tragedy-dumping them disillusioned back onto the unemployment market. There is a limit to the time during which a person can stay on the program. It is bad enough to be unemployed for a year or two, but it is tragic to raise people's hopes-to put them on the community employment program, to give them the impression that their problems are solved and that they have rejoined the ranks of the employed and, after a few months, dump them back into the ranks of the unemployed. The community employment program is only a band-aid scheme. It does not help very much in giving people skills. It does not give them permanent employment, nor even the prospect of permanent employment. The scheme just takes the unemployed off the unemployment statistics list for a few months. Unless the Government comes up with, at the very least, a supplement to CEP to allow those on the scheme to continue to obtain support in employment from the Government, the Government will have confirmed the worst opinions around Australia. Those people are starting to say: 'This Labor Government will do no more for the unemployed than did the Liberal Government before it.' I have mentioned that small businesses were being let down badly by this Government, and they have been. It was within the capacity of this Government to start the total abolition of payroll tax right around Australia. This would have provided great encouragement to employers to take on more staff. Payroll tax is a State tax but the States simply cannot afford, under their present economic constraints, to drop payroll tax at this time. It would have been possible under this Budget to give the States the sort of support that was needed to get at the very least those small business which employ up to, say, 50 people off the payroll tax regime. But no, that was not done. It would have been possible for this Government in this Budget to abolish the Division 7 tax, the undistributed profits tax. I have to ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who is sitting at the table: Why was that not done? Do not tell me that this Government is continuing the policy of its predecessor, the Liberal Party of Australia, of protecting big business, which does not have to distribute all of its profits, and hitting small businesses, which do have to distribute their profits or pay a tax. A government of this complexion which is keeping the undistributed profits tax on small businesses is a government which has abandoned small businesses. I would have hoped that the Government would pick up the message from lots of small businesses around Australia that they are in desperate economic straits in terms of their cash flow. One of the things that is happening at the moment to those small businesses is that they are providing funds for this Government out of their own money in sales tax payments, because most of them do not get their sales tax revenue in for 60, 90 or 120 days. However, this Government insists that they pay that tax out of their own capital within 21 days. I could not believe that a Labor Government would allow that to continue but this one has. It obviously has no interest in small businesses and their cash flow problems. The Government could have provided that provisional tax be paid quarterly; it could have extended income equalisation deposits to small businesses. Instead of this, unbelievable though it may seem, it has taken income equalisation deposits away from all small businesses, including farmers. Over the last 12 months this Government has shown what it thinks of small businesses around Australia by its approach to sales taxes. It is about to impose a sales tax on wine and in the process it will destroy a burgeoning wine industry across Australia, in particular the small vineyards across Australia which have been building up a potentially wonderful export industry for this country. These people have been developing vineyards and making wines that are already competing very favourably on world markets. However, they need an Australian market to provide them with a base. This Government has just taken away that Australian market. Instead of introducing an excise based on the volume of wine produced, the Government has decided to introduce a sales tax based on the wholesale price of the wine. The effect it will have is simply this : The bulk wine producers, big businesses-one must be in big business to get into bulk wine production-will be rubbing their hands with glee because the increase in sales tax to them will be so minimal that they will hardly notice it . But those who are trying to produce quality wines for export will be hit up to $3 a litre by this new tax. That will simply mean that this market will probably die as will the industry. This affects the small enterprises dotted around Australia which are trying to build up an export market for this country. They have just been hit to leg with this tax. There is still time for the Government to change its mind. I appeal to the Government to change its mind on this tax and refer the imposition of this tax to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I appeal to the Government to get the homework done at this late stage rather than go full speed ahead and carry out the imposition of this tax. Please find out more about it. Find out about the damage it is doing to the industry; find out about what is happening with the imported wines and the support that they are getting from their countries compared with the massive hit that our wine industry has just suffered by the imposition of this sales tax. I wish to refer briefly to some of the other sales taxes introduced by this Government which are hitting small businesses. They are sales tax on air conditioning ducting, fibreglass pool manufacturers and certain types of hearing aids. Through this Government we have sales taxes on small businesses that were never considered by its predecessors. Not only small businesses in metropolitan areas and bigger towns but small businesses right around the country have suffered from this Budget. Primary industry has been hit very hard with export inspection charges being increased by 211 per cent and with increased charges on apples and pears, canned fruit, cotton, dairy products, dried vine fruits, fishing and grapes-in fact, right across the board. The Australian Democrats tried to prevent the meat inspection charges from being imposed. I am very sad to have to repeat to the Senate that we failed because the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia would not give us support to prevent those meat inspection charges from being passed by the Senate . We tried to have the income equalisation deposit system retained but this Government, having withdrawn the legislation once, has reintroduced it with these Budget Bills. There are many groups, such as the environmental groups, the defence groups and the science and technology groups-the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation budget has been cut in real terms by 8 per cent in this Budget when we should be spending massive amounts on science, technology and education-which have been let down by this Budget. They may even be hit to leg again before very long because before the end of this year there probably will be another petrol price increase as a result of the United States dollar strengthening. There would seem to be only two alternative governments in this country today- the union controlled conservatives or the big business controlled conservatives- and both of them suffer from the following shortcomings: They are notoriously short term planners, and one cannot get a much shorter term plan than a plan that runs three months to the next election. Both of them lack the ability to see beyond the next Budget at the very most. There is no long term plan associated with this Budget. There is no long term plan associated with any of the Budgets that have been presented in this Parliament for many years. Both of the alternatives, the union controlled conservatives and the big business controlled conservatives, have expansionist governments, and no matter how they abuse each other in terms of blowing out Budgets and increasing deficits, both of them are willing to mortgage Australia's tomorrows. Both of them, the union controlled conservatives that we have in Government today and the big business controlled conservatives that preceded them, are willing to sacrifice the unemployed and the disadvantaged minorities. Both of them lack vision. They lack the vision to see the future of this country, to see where the opportunities are. What an incredible Budget to bring down in 1984-a Budget which reduces, instead of expands phenomenally the Budget allocation to science and technology. It is unbelievable in 1984 that that could happen. It is unbelievable in 1984 that we are not planning the phasing out of protection of industries in this country. And it is unbelievable that a second Hawke Budget could be brought down still lacking the ability and the willingness to restructure the taxes in this country. The alternatives for Australia between a union controlled conservative government and a big business controlled conservative government leave the people no alternative but to look to the Australian Democrats when the next election comes around. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. [COGNATE DEBATE: SELECT COMMITTEE ON ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A JUDGE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF A JUDGE] Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.32) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I was supporting the motion moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) , which had as its first leg the notion that the criminal prosecution process should be exhausted before any further steps are taken by this Senate chamber in relation to the allegations of Mr Clarrie Briese that Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court of Australia had engaged in conduct or activity which was intended to put pressure on Mr Briese and influence the outcome of certain committal proceedings in the magistrate's courts of New South Wales. I was addressing my remarks to the propriety of exhausting that criminal prosecution process by the Senate giving its material, its evidence, to Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, for his assessment as to whether a prosecution should go ahead. I understand that only an hour or so ago the Australian Democrats agreed that the step of sending the materials to Mr Temby ought to go ahead, though in tandem with another proposal. To that extent, I must give myself some credit for having been so persuasive in that hour or so before lunch, because obviously I dispelled at least the misgivings and fears of the Democrats, if not those other honourable senators opposite. But then we come to the proposal that the Democrats now say should go in tandem with the Temby reference. As I understand it, the Democrats still have in mind a notion that a Senate Committee act in conjunction with a special adviser or parliamentary commissioner. Their exact intention is a little obscure. Therefore , in the 10 minutes remaining to me, I should like to deal with the notion of a parliamentary commissioner, so that at least I may be as persuasive as I was before lunch in dispelling the thought that that is really a viable option. When it was first floated that the parliamentary commissioner might be used to conduct an inquiry into alleged misbehaviour by Mr Justice Murphy, I was astonished that this nineteenth century British anachronism should be revived in our twentieth century Australian democracy. It is a form of adjunct to the parliament that has never been used by the House of Commons or the House of Lords this century, and it carries many difficulties with it. The legal difficulties attending handing over the coercive powers to an outside person or body is quite immense. They have to do with the privilege that would attach to any evidence taken by such a commission and whether, indeed, it could even administer an oath. Indeed, it would be almost certainly subject to legal challenge at its creation. Just before lunch I was saying that in any case, any decision made by any such commission or commissioners, could not be conclusive or binding on the Senate or any member of it. I certainly would not give up my right or responsibility under the Constitution to assess the evidence or come to a decision as to whether the conduct or activity or states of fact, or even states of mind, amounted to misbehaviour on the part of the judge. Anything which gave to the Commission any conclusive power to determine such matters would involve a gross dereliction of the duty of this chamber and of the individual members in it. I had a quick look at the history of this parliamentary commissioner concept as it has operated in the United Kingdom in the nineteenth century. Nothing that I see in the few examples that the Parliamentary Library has been able to find gives me much confidence. There were three such occasions. One was the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the National Land Company which investigated the affairs of a co-operative land settlement company and appointed an independent accountant to examine documents of the company. Again, a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Army and Navy Estimates was empowered to appoint independent accountants to examine the books and accounts of certain defence supply establishments. The Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System inquired into labour conditions in certain industries and was empowered by the House to employ a person to visit the localities where those conditions were alleged to exist and to report back to the Committee. It has been put to us now that there is some analogy between the use of a parliamentary commissioner in the United Kingdom and the high, solemn constitutional responsibility of this Parliament, and of this chamber in this instance, in relation to the removal from office of a High Court judge. Should we compare this situation with the appointment of auditors to examine accounts and a factory inspector to check on unduly harsh conditions in the factories of the late-nineteenth century England? It just seems incredible to me that it should be proposed that we, in our twentieth century Australian democracy, with our robust parliamentary system being part of the separation of powers which is so important to our Federal system, should adopt this nineteenth century anachronism which, as I say, the United Kingdom, the Westminster Parliament, the Parliament from which we draw our privileges and our principles of action, has not seen fit to employ at any time during this century. Senator Peter Rae —Are there not some United States analogies which are rather more modern? Senator TATE —If they exist, of course, they are more modern; but whether they are more pertinent or more apt for imitation by our Australian democracy which, as I say, is based on the Westminster parliamentary system, is very questionable indeed. So, very shortly, to hand over coercive powers of the Senate to a parliamentary commissioner is fraught with legal uncertainties. It certainly would be inconclusive. Most importantly, it is misconceived in terms of our constitutional role and responsibility. After all, and Senator Peter Rae who is a well known committee man within the Senate system would appreciate this, this matter is not exceedingly complex or difficult. It is very serious; it is even solemn, as I have said, and awesome. But the matters of fact that have to be determined if the allegation of Briese is to be sustained are relatively simple. What it boils down to is a simple question of determining whether certain facts occurred or whether certain states of mind existed. Did the judge utter certain words, particularly in the crucial last telephone conversation, to which only he and Mr Briese were parties? If the words were used, and if the words on the face of them do not amount to an attempt to influence the outcome of the proceedings, can an inference to that effect be drawn from their being uttered in a certain context? They are very simple questions which, though, as I say, carry with them tremendous weight as to consequence, are themselves relatively easy to determine . To put forward a proposition that a Senate Committee with full powers of calling before it witnesses, papers and documents and so on, and with standing order 304 suspended so as to permit the cross-examination of Mr Briese by Mr Justice Murphy's counsel, with the judge then being given an opportunity to respond if he so desired, as natural justice requires, could not adequately determine the facts as to whether certain words were uttered and whether a certain state of mind can be inferred, a certain intention on the part of the judge to influence proceedings, is nonsense. Indeed, it is demeaning, and rather a reflection on the capacity of members of this chamber, to suggest that we as a committee, with those extra powers to permit cross-examination, could not come to a determination and a conclusion. After all, this very Senate Select Committee which was unable to come to unanimity on the question of the weight to be attached to the Briese evidence, nevertheless unanimously concluded that the tapes and transcripts, the original Age materials, were not authentic and genuine and did not in any event disclose misbehaviour. Again, we unanimously concluded that no facts existed to support or sustain another very serious allegation. Senator Peter Rae —You concluded that they were not genuine, did you say? Senator TATE —Yes, we did. We were unable to conclude that the tapes and transcripts were authentic or genuine. Senator Peter Rae —Which is different from finding that they were not genuine. Senator TATE —I cannot believe that honourable senators, who quite obviously demonstrate an ability unanimously to come to certain conclusions as to fact in relation to very serious allegations arising out of the Age materials, would not equally, without the assistance of a parliamentary commissioner, determine the simple questions of fact which I have outlined. In any case, I believe that the course proposed by the Opposition is fraught with danger. If there must be another stage after the criminal prosecution process is exhausted by consideration of the materials by Mr Temby, to which I understand the Democrats have now agreed, then let us as honourable senators in this chamber take on the constitutional responsibility that is placed fairly and squarely on our shoulders by section 72. We do not need to hide behind the skirts of any parliamentary commissioner, or further special adviser, or retired judge. I believe that with the suspension of standing order 304, and by giving the judge's counsel full right to cross-examine Mr Briese, giving parties power to call what evidence they want, and opportunity for the judge to respond as he is entitled by the rules of natural justice, then the Senate Committee could come to a proper conclusion. I believe, therefore, that the course of action proposed by the Government in the motion put forward by the Attorney-General is the constitutionally proper one, and certainly the constitutionally safe one, if there is to be any further step. I must reiterate that my own position arising out of the chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge was simply that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a further judicial phase of our inquiry. If there is to be any further phase, then the Government's proposition is eminently reasonable and I believe ought to commend itself to the Senate. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(6.43) —Yesterday when this debate first came before the Senate I canvassed on behalf of the Australian Democrats the attitudes we had to the various routes down which we could go to solve what was rapidly becoming a very unpleasant problem. I do not want to go into all the details I brought up yesterday, but I think that, in view of the speeches preceding my own, perhaps it would not be such a bad thing to run over the whole issue. First, we were confronted by a report, five months in the making, by six senators who produced three differing assessments, on which the Senate was then supposed to make some sort of intelligent assessment. We were confronted by the Government saying that, in view of those differing assessments by honourable senators on that Committee, the Government would refer the matter to Mr Ian Temby, QC, a man for whom I have a high personal regard, as Director of Public Prosecutions, and that that would be the first and almost the only step that was to be taken. Certainly it was to stand alone for the time in which Mr Temby was meeting. The decision to take that route was made by the Attorney-General, who has taken what many honourable senators on this side of the chamber, and many outside legal opinions, believe is a very narrow, black and white view of what constitutes misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution. We said then, and I repeat today-I believe the Opposition took the same stance-that this was simply not appropriate; that Mr Temby would be placed in exactly the same position as was the Senate Committee. He would be confronted with two lots of sworn evidence in cross-examination from Mr Briese, a man of very high status in the community, but unsworn and certainly uncross-examined statements from Mr Justice Murphy. Senator Tate raised the question of suspension of standing order 304 to allow Mr Justice Murphy's counsel to cross-examine. I repeat what I said yesterday and remind honourable senators that Senator Chipp gave the previous Senate Select Committee just that option, and the majority chose not to take it. That left Mr Justice Murphy, I think quite legitimately, with the stance that he would not get involved in something which he could see would rebound against him quite unjustly. He argued, we believe legitimately, for the full requirements of natural justice to be complied with-in effect, for justice to be done and to be seen to be done. Our concern here is not only with the integrity of this Parliament, of the Senate, and of the Australian Constitution, but with justice being done to a man against whom serious allegations have been made. So far as we were concerned, simply sending off the whole issue to Mr Temby, who has very limited resources for investigation and no coercive powers whatever, was simply going to be a non- event. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) promised, and the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) repeated today, that at the end of Mr Temby's inquiry the Senate would have the opportunity to make some decision about whether it would undertake a further inquiry. The Government, however, made clear that it would leave that decision to Opposition members-placing us, I believe, in the sort of invidious party political situation, or the appearance of that which all along we have sought to avoid. Indeed, the fact that with six honourable senators on a select committee three reports were brought down-one from the Labor members, one from the Liberal members and one from the Australian Democrat-indicates that we have to be very careful indeed that we be seen not to be running a party political line. It was therefore our intention to try to leave it as much out of the overt political arena as was possible. That meant our putting forward a motion that an independent non-Senate-connected parliamentary commission be established. We advocated giving three commissioners the sorts of powers that would be consistent with allowing them to call witnesses, to allow those witnesses counsel, to allow cross-examination and so on. The intention was that they should report back to this Parliament so that this Parliament could undertake its responsibility, and its responsibility alone, for any further action under section 72 of the Constitution. That parliamentary commission, as I understand it, could be set up without legislation. The legislation that was necessary was to offer protection to the commissioners and to the witnesses appearing before it. The Government said that it was not prepared to support that legislative process. To our minds, that left the witnesses and the commissioners in an intolerable position. I indicated yesterday at some length in the Press conference I held that if the Government remained intransigent on this matter today, we would have a look at a fall-back position. I indicated then that at that stage the only position we could see was some sort of combination of our motion and intention of an independent inquiry with the Opposition's mechanism of a Senate committee. In other words, we would have to look at coming up with another sort of inquiry that had commissioners, as independent as possible, operating under the protection, for witnesses and the commissioners, of a Senate select committee. Today, after consulting each other, we decided that perhaps as a matter at least of courtesy we should attempt to come to some form of consensus with the Government. Senator Chipp and I therefore spoke to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General in an attempt to reach some form of compromise, if you like, that would allow an independent inquiry and also satisfy their desire to have Mr Temby look at whether there was a prima facie case on the evidence that was put before the Senate committee for questioning Mr Justice Murphy. We put to them that we would be prepared to support a reference to Mr Temby if the Government were prepared to offer us the legislation that was required to protect the witnesses and the commissioners of an independent commission and that the two would run concurrently, as we believe that they would be looking at separate, although connected, issues; that is, the element of criminality which Senator Evans has been stressing and the broader element of misbehaviour under section 72. Senator Peter Rae —Or incapacity. Senator HAINES —Or incapacity. I take Senator Peter Rae's point but I reiterate that the debate has tended to look at misbehaviour as the definition of incapacity is even more fraught with dangers than the definition of misbehaviour . Nevertheless, the Attorney-General has been taking a very narrow view of misbehaviour in the criminal sense. Other members of this House and very distinguished lawyers outside it have taken a different point of view. I suggest , with respect to the Attorney-General, that we owe it to this Parliament and to Mr Justice Murphy to be as broad as possible, as independent as possible and as non-political as possible in finding a solution. The Government said that it was not prepared to give us its legislative backing in return for its reference to Mr Temby. Therefore, we fell back to the position that I signalled yesterday; that we would come to some arrangement whereby a marriage, if you like, could take place between the motion we put forward calling for a purely independent commission and the Opposition's protection of the Senate select committee. That in effect is what we have brought forward today-the proposition that a three-member or four-member Senate select committee be established which would have attached to it, appointed by the Senate, two commissioners to assist the committee in performing its investigation and cross- examination functions. The way we envisage it operating is in much the same way as an independent commission would operate. However, it would require the protection of the select committee because, and I must repeat it, the Government refused to offer us any other form of legislative protection for those people. If we are to get to the nub of the matter, an expression that the Attorney- General uses repeatedly, we cannot hamstring the commissioners or the Senate committee. We certainly cannot view an investigation by Mr Temby as being the sort of thing that is likely to resolve the matter, any more than the previous Committee was in a position to resolve the matter. So what we anticipate setting up is something as close as possible to an independent inquiry, as devoid as possible of party politicking, as fair as possible to Mr Justice Murphy and as honourable as possible for the Parliament to undertake, given section 72 of the Constitution, which places the responsibility fairly and squarely on us. Given the impasse that was looming before us, with the Government being totally intransigent on this matter, I believe that we have taken the only possible and responsible steps available to us. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. The following papers were presented: Navigation Act-Marine Orders-1984-No. 7-Part 44-(Convention Containers) No. 8- Part 45-(Non-Convention Containers)