Monday, 10 September 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.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 assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 99 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: A. 1. Amendments to the Customs Regulations have removed legal barriers to the importation of hard core pornography into Australia; 2. The introduction of X classification in the ACT, by the Prohibited Publications Ordinance, has removed legal barriers to the sale of hard core pornography within the ACT; and 3. The distribution of pornography degrades women, injures children and undermines family life. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: B. 1. Disallow the Prohibited Publications Ordinance and the amendments to the Customs Regulations; and 2. Introduce legislation which adequately reflects community standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 92 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled. We, the undersigned, plead that the Senate call upon the Government to honour its obligation to protect Australia's children, by reversing its decision to remove barriers to the importation of hardcore pornography; and to restore control to customs point-of-entry; because control at point-of-sale has proven to be wholly ineffective, and injurious video viewing by children is widespread. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 656 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned taxpayers of Australia respectfully shows that it is our belief that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should not grant homosexual relationships the same rights, privileges, and therefore status, as normal heterosexual marriage, family or relationships. As taxpayers, we humbly request that the Senate legislate to reverse this decision immediately, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 93 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 the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 167 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 communications 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. by Senator Zakharov (from 32 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That 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 Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 81 citizens) and Reid (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposals 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 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembed . The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 362 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth their objection to any proposed legislation removing the power of existing Commonwealth law to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography, ( e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. They furthermore petition that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 525 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned request that our democratically elected representatives to the Parliament of the Commonwealth: 1. Clearly and unequivocally condemn the continuing breaches of the human rights in Poland; 2. Demand from the Polish authorities an immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners in that country; 3. Demand that the people in Poland arrested for their political beliefs and activities are not subjected to torture, beatings, physical coercion and psychological maltreatment. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 583 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-west region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. Note that such a proposal will result in the destruction of the historic village of Pittown, Longneck Wildlife Reserve, significant Aboriginal relics and the historic Scheyville camp and will irreversibly alter the character of the five Macquarie towns. 3. Consider the resulting intolerable population of the Hawkesbury River. 4. Note that approximately 2000 properties will be resumed, displacing over 5000 residents. 5. Consider the detrimental effects of noise, air and vehiclular pollution on many thousands of residents in the surrounding districts of Hawkesbury, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby shires and Blacktown and Penrith cities. 6. Give immediate consideration to finding a more suitable alternative site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 572 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support 'The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp (from 295 citizens), Jack Evans (from 297 citizens), Macklin ( from 297 citizens) and Mason (from 299 citizens). Petitions received. Notice of Motion Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them. Notice of Motion Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Following the notice of motion of Senator Chipp, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, in view of the significance of the subject matter of the Bill of which Senator Chipp gave notice on 10 September 1984, the Senate is firmly of the opinion that the Bill should be dealt with during the sittings of the Senate in the week ending 14 September 1984. I advise the Senate that we intend to try to bring the Bill on for hearing. Notice of Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Representation Act 1983 to make provision for determining the order in which senators shall be taken to be elected. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) requests that the Hawke Labor Government give a firm government statement committing Australia to ANZUS and other treaties involving Australian allies; (b) deplores the New Zealand Labor Party's decision for that country reneging on all allied treaties involving nuclear power; and Senator Chipp-What about the life after death one? That was better than this one. Senator BOSWELL —I gave you a go, Senator Chipp-- (c) calls for an assurance from the Hawke Government that this will not happen in the case of Australia's obligations and commitments to treaties to which it is a partner. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Minister for Health and the Government for blatantly breaching the Medicare law pertaining to 'doctor of choice' in a public hospital. 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. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-annual report 1983-84 2. Conditions for the export of koalas-paper 3. Superannuation Fund Investment Trust-State of the Trust-minute 4. The future operation of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory- report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and Technology relating to the report 5. Costigan Royal Commission handover to National Crime Authority- correspondence 6. Review of matters affecting the Australian Telecommunications Commission ( Telecom)-report-together with the text of a statement by the Special Minister of State relating to the report 7. Migration Program and World Population Conference-statement and papers-text of statement by Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made in House of Representatives on 7 September 1984 together with documents tabled by Minister Senator BUTTON —I wish to inform the Senate that Senator Gietzelt is ill and absent from the chamber today. Any questions that would normally be directed to Senator Gietzelt are to be directed to Senator Grimes. SPECIAL PROSECUTOR Senator DURACK —I refer the Attorney-General to answers he gave on Friday last concerning his correspondence and relations with the former Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, the majority of which he tabled on Friday. He referred us to the National Times to ascertain the contents of another of the letters. The Attorney will recall assuring the Senate that as at 25 January this year all was, in his own words, 'sweetness and light' between him and Mr Redlich. However, I refer the Attorney to the last paragraph of Mr Redlich's letter of 25 January-this letter was tabled-in which Mr Redlich noted that no one from the Attorney- General's Department had been in contact with him on several important issues and that this had happened notwithstanding the shabby treatment of which he had complained in his letter of 7 December, the letter that was not tabled and for which the Attorney referred us to the National Times. Does the Attorney-General agree with Mr Redlich that this shabby treatment by the Attorney-General's Department was deserving of censure? Has the Attorney investigated Mr Redlich's serious allegation and, if so, has any action been taken within the Department? Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said in tabling and incorporating the correspondence last Friday, it was my belief, and that was confirmed by Mr Redlich's response to me of 25 January, that all outstanding matters between us had been resolved and, to the extent that there was a belief that there had been matters which could have been better handled in the Department, Mr Redlich was not inclined to the view that there was any further action required on my part or on the Department's part in that respect. Accordingly, I have not felt it appropriate, then or subsequently or in the light of last week's discussion, to do any further follow up because I am quite satisfied that the matters were properly handled at the time. To the extent that there was dissatisfaction by Mr Redlich with the way in which matters had been handled in the Department, I believed, and still believe, that was largely as a result of misunderstandings rather than anything worse. My impressions in that regard have been subsequently reinforced by a letter that I received today from Mr Redlich, but I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with him whether he feels it would be appropriate for me to put it into the public record. I will have that discussion. The letter is headed 'Confidential'. There are some obvious aspects of the letter which I would need to check with him before I put them in the public domain. However, I think it is, nonetheless, appropriate in the context of last week's questions and today's question from Senator Durack to quote two sentences from that letter . The first sentence states: As to the correspondence, I should say that I have given the subject matter of that correspondence no further thoughts since February of this year when the matters troubling us appeared to have been resolved to our mutual satisfaction. Again, the final sentence of the letter states: I understand that you have corrected the misapprehension that our working relationship was less than satisfactory and I endorse all that you have said in that regard. Under the circumstances, I do not believe that there is any further action that is either necessary, desirable or required in the course of events to which Senator Durack referred. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 363 a document quoted from-- Senator GARETH EVANS —I made a claim of confidentiality in respect of it. Senator Chaney —Yes. I just wanted to give notice, Mr President, that, given the Attorney-General's undertaking to consider the question of release, the Opposition would not propose to take action on that. We would simply ask him to give early consideration to advising the Senate whether that letter will be released. The PRESIDENT —As I understand it, the Attorney-General claimed confidentiality. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is exactly what I said I would do, and Senator Chaney 's contribution is entirely redundant accordingly. Senator TATE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Government been made aware of the statement emanating from a senior Pentagon source to the effect that President Reagan has the constitutional power to launch a nuclear first strike in retaliation against conventional warfare, presumably launched by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries in Europe? What is the attitude of the Australian Government to this terrifying possibility of the unleashing of the nuclear arsenal without any consultation with Congress or its leadership? Is the Australian Government content that the triggering of the nuclear threshold, with uncertain escalation on both sides, should be vested in one person with whose nation we are in alliance and to which we provide facilities? Is the same power claimed by the President in relation to that country's support for Australia under the ANZUS Treaty should we be under conventional attack? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of reports of an article in a recent issue of Foreign Policy Magazine by the head of the Federation of American Scientists, Mr Jeremy Stone, suggesting that the United States President could lawfully use nuclear weapons only after consulting Congress. I am also aware of the reports over the weekend of more recent remarks attributed to Mr Chapman Cox of the Pentagon General Counsel's Office, disagreeing with Mr Stone. I have not seen the full texts either of Mr Stone's article or Mr Cox's response. The Press reports I have seen, however, suggest that Mr Cox's remarks appear to have been a restatement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy of flexible response, which leaves open the possibility of resort to the use of nuclear weapons in response to an overwhelming conventional attack by the Warsaw Pact forces so as to deter such an attack. The Government does not believe that United States defensive strategy envisages a pre-emptive disarming nuclear strike or 'first strike'. Indeed, American Administration spokesmen have frequently stressed that this is not United States policy. President Reagan and other senior Administration officials have reiterated on many occasions over the past year-the President as recently as last weekend in a reported interview in the Sunday Times-his remarks to the United Nations General Assembly in September 1983 that 'a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought'. On 6 May 1984 United States Defense Secretary Weinberger said: It is definitely not in the intentions, in the plans, in the strategy or in the design of the American Government that any nuclear war be fought anywhere. We do not believe that a nuclear war can be won, no matter where it is fought. These statements are, of course, in accord with the Australian Government's approach to these matters. In his speech on disarmament to the House of Representatives on 6 June this year, the Prime Minister made a statement on the functions of the Australia- United States joint defence facilities. He made clear that the highest levels of the United States Administration had been consulted and had acceded in the issuance of the statement, which contains the following extract, which I quote from the Prime Minister's statement: We do not believe there can be a winning side in a nuclear war. The notion of a nuclear first strike designed to disarm an adversary would be destabilising if it were to gain credence. I should point out on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that it is a fundamental element of Australia's foreign policy that the world's nuclear weapons stockpiles should be reduced and eventually eliminated. Australia has made clear that it would support a mutual and verifiable freeze on nuclear weapons stockpiles and urged that agreements should be reached which would lead to both qualitative restraints and quantitative reductions in nuclear forces. It has said on many occasions that there should be an early resumption of negotiations between the super powers on the limitation and reduction of nuclear weapons, and this position has been registered with both the Soviet and United States Governments. Australia is working actively in all relevant international forums for the achievement of these objectives. Finally, as for the view that the United States President could only lawfully use nuclear weapons after consulting Congress, this is really a matter for determination by the various branches of the United States Government and not one on which it would be appropriate for any representative of the Australian Government to comment. Senator TATE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. With due respect to the Attorney, who I know is acting on a brief no doubt handed to him by the Department of Foreign Affairs, his answer misses the point of my question, which was not to accuse the United States of pursuing a policy of first pre-emptive strike in any exchange with the Soviet Union and its allies but of first use of nuclear weapons in retaliation or in defence. The crossing of the nuclear threshold was the point of my question. Further by way of supplementary question -- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ask a supplementary question, not make a statement. Senator TATE —The Attorney's response was in terms of NATO's flexible response. I ask whether that also applies to ANZUS. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will take Senator Tate's supplementary question on notice. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney again to dealings between him and his Department and former Special Prosecutor Redlich, and to another matter which he failed to answer satisfactorily on Friday, namely, the request by Mr Redlich as to whether or not he should pass on to the Victoria Police material from the Age tapes concerning Mr Robert Trimbole and alleged race fixing in Victoria. Why was Mr Redlich not told anything by the Attorney or his Department about what he should do with the material? Will the Attorney now tell the Senate-he refused to do so on Friday- why the draft letter to Mr Redlich as revised by the Attorney was not resubmitted to the Attorney? Does he agree that this apparent failure of administration reflects badly on a department which he claimed would take on a new look from February this year and which is seeking a 14 per cent increase in expenditure on salaries and allowances in the current year? How much responsibility does he, as Minister, accept for the lethargy and inertia of his Department? Senator GARETH EVANS —I believe I fully answered in my response on Friday the question which Senator Collard raises, and I have very little to add to it except to say that, to the extent that a letter should have been sent out under my signature, then certainly there was a lapse in administration. Appropriate action has subsequently been taken by me to ensure that it does not occur again. The reason this occurred is better understood when it is appreciated that Mr Redlich's commission as Special Prosecutor terminated around that time. I think the view was taken that once the termination of that commission had occurred any formal response of this kind dealing with powers capable of exercise by Mr Redlich while exercising that commission was purely academic. Nonetheless, that does not excuse my failure to send a formal reply, even though it would only have confirmed what was Mr Redlich's obvious understanding of the state of the law. I indicated as much on Friday and I do not think anything can possibly be constructed out of that minor lapse which would remotely justify the conclusions which the honourable senator sought to draw at the end of his question. The reality of the matter is that the Department needed a fundamental overhaul after the mess it was left in by the previous Administration. That fundamental overhaul has taken place. Occasional lapses do occur in any department of State but this is not one such as to justify any neurosis of the kind being artificially generated by the honourable senator. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister able to report on progress in regard to the monitoring of hospital standards throughout Australia? Is the Minister satisfied that the Australian Council on Hospital Standards, established in 1974, is maintaining an adequate review of hospital standards in regard to staffing, medical records, administration, patient safety and food quality? Can the Minister explain why Queensland is the only State failing to participate in this important program? Senator GRIMES —The Australian Council on Hospital Standards comprises 21 people who are representative of most of the professional organisations associated with health care in this country, including all the colleges of medical practitioners , the Australian College of Health Service Administrators, the Hospitals Association, the Australian Medical Association and groups of that ilk. It is a professional body and it is an independent body whose role is to undertake the examination for accreditation purposes of Australian public and private hospitals. This process involves an evaluation of an hospital's organisational structure, its provision of care and its comparison with contemporary established professional standards to determine whether the hospital meets sufficient of these standards to merit the Council's accreditation status. An independent study conducted by the University of New South Wales supported the view that accreditation improves the quality of care available at hospitals that undertake the accreditation process. The Council is playing an important role, therefore, in ensuring that higher standards of care and treatment are available to patients in Australian public and private hospitals. At this time there is certainly no mandatory provision that hospitals have to be accredited. However, since 1974 some 43 per cent of all hospital beds in Australia have been surveyed . As Senator Reynolds has said, all States, with the exception of Queensland, have agreed to have their public hospitals surveyed. In the two and a half years since 1 January 1982, 55 public hospitals in New South Wales, 43 in Victoria and eight in South Australia have been granted accreditation status. The only Queensland public hospital accredited in that period is the Commonwealth Veterans' Affairs hospital. I think we can only speculate as to why the Queensland Government refuses to participate in an independently conducted process dedicated to the maintenance of high standards of hospital treatment and patient care. It would seem that, in the same way as Queensland is the only Parliament in Australia without a Public Accounts Committee, the Bjelke-Petersen Government rejects any independent scrutiny and accountability of its public hospital system. One can only assume that it is afraid that the standards of care and treatment provided are not up to the standards of care and treatment provided by hospitals throughout the rest of Australia. If so, I believe the Queensland Government should ensure the traditional Medicare grants available to the Queensland Government are used to raise these standards. Senator Boswell —It is owed $62m. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator is absolutely innumerate if he repeats a statement such as that knowing that Queensland has done as well out of the agreement. Queensland is the only State having the level of funds provided by the Commonwealth to its public hospitals increased by the introduction of Medicare. Other States are receiving simply revenue compensation, but Queensland will receive a real funding increase of $50m in the first 17 months of Medicare to 30 June 1985. Over $23m of that real increase in funding has already been paid. There is little evidence that it has been spent on improving standards of services. I can only hope that it will be used for the purposes intended so that Queensland hospitals can then receive accreditation status. Quite clearly, the Queensland Government does not want to be involved in an independent accreditation because Queensland hospitals have not been receiving the assistance they should have received since the introduction of Medicare. The questions should be put to the Premier of Queensland and the Minister for Health in Queensland, Mr Austin: Where is the missing $20m? Where has it been spent? If Queensland hospitals are of an adequate standard, why is the Queensland Government not willing to have its hospitals independently surveyed? Until those questions are answered the Queensland Government is the one which should be asked the questions. The Queensland Government is the one that stands under suspicion in this area. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question on the same subject as that raised by Senator Tate. I refer to the outrageous and shameful statement, allegedly emanating from Mr Cox in Washington over the weekend, that the President of the United States of America can and would if he judged necessary launch a nuclear first strike without reference to Congress. In the lengthy and informative answer which the Attorney gave, I could not pick up whether he stated that the Australian Government has reacted to this report by specifically asking the United States Government to state categorically to the Australian Government that under no circumstances would the United States or its President use a pre-emptive option without consulting Congress and, in particular, any pre-emptive option in response to an overwhelming conventional superiority of the Soviet Union. Will he ask the Prime Minister, in view of the cloud over this issue upon which the survival of the world could depend, to have a categorical, unequivocal view from the President of the United States that under no circumstances would the United States use that option? Senator GARETH EVANS —My reply to Senator Tate did not address the particular matter to which Senator Chipp has now referred. I will raise the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs or, in his absence, the Prime Minister, as Senator Chipp indicated, and seek such response as he may be prepared to make. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What steps is the Government taking to alleviate the serious shortage of emergency accommodation for young people both in the Australian Capital Territory and in the States? Senator GRIMES —The Government is aware of the difficulty facing young people who need emergency accommodation, although part of that problem has been created in the past as much by a lack of long term and medium term accommodation as by a lack of emergency accommodation in the form of shelters. There has been a bottle -neck in emergency accommodation in both the Australian Capital Territory and the various States which has created this difficulty at the start of the process of homelessness in this group. The 1984-85 Budget provides an increase in funding for a new national program of services to assist homeless youth, women in crisis and also the chronically homeless. The proposed new program-the supported accommodation assistance program-is designed to consolidate and improve a number of existing Commonwealth and State programs and will be jointly administered and funded. One problem that has faced us in the past, which arose out of the inquiry into homelessness established by the previous Government, is that there has been no rhyme or reason, and no long term plan for dealing with the problem of homelessness in the community. There has been no co-ordination between the States and the Commonwealth. In this financial year Commonwealth funding to the equivalent of $27m will be provided, increasing by a further $9.2m to a total of $36.4m next financial year . The funding available in this allocation represents a 100 per cent increase on the amount spent on these services by the Federal Government in 1983-84. The concept and general principles of the new program have been agreed to by the States. Bilaterial negotiations are continuing to clarify the situation as far as administrative functions are concerned. But I expect that point to be resolved very soon and the new program, I hope, will come into effect on 1 January 1985 and will run until 30 June 1989. The program is designed to build on existing plans for women, youth, and the chronically homeless, improving the co-ordination, delivery and standard of these activities. In 1984-85, funding will be the equivalent of $8.1m for the youth supported accommodation program, $ 7.83m for the women's emergency services program and $10.89m for the general supported accommodation program. I hope that in the future we will have a better system of planning and that we will be able to expand the program in the certainty that money is going to the right places, and that it will be administered properly. In that way I believe we will greatly improve the services available, not only to youth but also to homeless people generally in the community. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Japan led by Mr Hanashi. To all members of the delegation, on behalf of all honourable senators, I extend a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. I personally look forward to meeting them all individually later in the afternoon. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MESSNER —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and it relates to recent revelations by the Parliamentary Library that a single pensioner earning an extra $20 a week above the pension in 1982-83 would have paid an annual tax of $20, and that the same pensioner this financial year will be hit with a tax bill of $109-an increase in tax of more than 440 per cent . I ask the Minister: Why has the Hawke Labor Government increased income taxes on pensioners? Senator BUTTON —I am not prepared to agree that the Government has done that. I will examine the recent revelations by the Parliamentary Library-as Senator Messner describes them-and provide an answer to his question as soon as possible . Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a report in today's Australian that an influential business think-tank based in New York indicates that according to an international economic survey Australia's economy is expanding faster than the economies of the other major Western countries and is running at a pace far stronger than the relatively mature United States' recovery? Can the Minister comment on the accuracy of the growth rates indicated in the survey? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen the report. I think Senator Sibraa indicated that Australia has the fastest growth rate of any industrialised country. I believe that is correct. The facts show that. However, I am not sure of the derivation of some of the figures quoted in the Australian. For example, the table published shows that Australia's annual growth rate is 15 per cent. I do not know whether that was obtained by multiplying the figures for one quarter by four-in which case a figure of that order could have been produced-and if so what quarter it was. So in the absence of the original report, there are many uncertainties regarding the methods by which the figures published were derived. There is also a reference to an economic performance index. Again, I do not know precisely what that means, and it is not defined in the Press report. I would expect, however, that it measures more than productivity growth and probably incorporates, for example, interest rates and the rate of inflation or, more importantly, changes in the rate of inflation. However, leaving that aside, from objective Australian evidence it is a matter of public record that for the 12 months ending June 1984 real economic growth in Australia was above 10 per cent. On a year on year basis for the same year it was between 5 and 6 per cent. It is correct that the farm sector, which experienced a major recovery in 1983- 84, contributed more than it normally would to the total 10 per cent growth over the last financial year. But even after that is taken out, real non-farm growth for this year ending June, as against the year ending June 1983, was still above 8 per cent. There has been a dramatic turnaround in the economy since this Government came to power. It contrasts, I think, with the three consecutive quarters of negative growth over which the previous Government had presided during its last year in office. Therefore there was negative growth over the entire year. That rate of 8 per cent is the fastest rate of growth that has been recorded in the Australian economy for more than 20 years. Those who were always confident about the prices and incomes accord would not be surprised. Those who were not confident or did not support the accord would find it even more remarkable that that dramatic growth rate was accompanied by an equally dramatic fall in the inflation rate, which if measured by the consumer price index shows a fall of more than 50 per cent and if measured by the implicit price deflator shows a fall of some 40 per cent. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask the Minister whether he recalls putting out a statement with the then Opposition Treasury spokesman, Mr Willis, on 8 August 1982 stating: . . . it is absurd that pensioners who are officially classified as 'needy' should be forced to pay income tax. How does the Minister reconcile that statement with the statistics produced by the Parliamentary Library which show that single pensioners have had their tax bills increased up to five times under the Hawke Labor Government? Is it not a fact that the Minister and his Government are forcing these officially needy pensioners to pay more tax as a result of this Government's policies? Senator GRIMES —I do not recall the exact statement but I do not resile from any such statement. That statement did not say that anyone who received even a part pension with an income on top of the pension should not pay any tax. We would have an extraordinarily inequitable system in this country if someone on a small part pension and a considerable income did not pay tax when a person with a wife and two children and on an equivalent income did. I think Senator Walters will agree with that. I have not seen the document to which she and Senator Messner have referred today. I will certainly look at it. What is important to pensioners is their disposable income rather than the amount of tax they pay. I will check the figures that are put out and check the situation of those pensioners and give the honourable senator an answer. Of course, I would like to be in the situation, as would any Minister for Social Security in this country, to be able to give a very large increase in pensions in the community. However, faced with an economy in the mess Senator Walters and her colleagues left the economy in, we could not do as much as we would have liked to do. I point out that, had the previous Government's indexation procedures been followed by this Government, pensioners would have received no increase in November. That is simply a fact. Senator Withers —Because of the Medicare fiddle. Senator GRIMES —The previous Government did not compensate for that either, in spite of the fact that Senator Chaney keeps claiming that it did. I will check the alleged facts pushed around here today by Senator Walters and give the honourable senator an answer as soon as possible. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister seen the article by Peter Ritchie in the Australian of 4 September in which it is claimed that the high level of youth unemployment is due to youth wages being high relative to adult wages? I also believe the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock , has made similar allegations. Does the Minister believe that the factors contributing to youth unemployment are far more complex than this? Can he outline what steps are being taken by the Government towards creating better employment opportunities for young people, particularly in the area of apprenticeship training? Senator BUTTON —I agree that the issues involved in youth unemployment and the levels of youth unemployment are far more complex than is sometimes suggested in public debate. I remind the Senate that the sharp increase in youth unemployment occurred under the previous Government in its last two years of office when the unemployment rate among 15 to 19-year-olds rose from 15 per cent to 24 per cent, an increase of nine percentage points in those two years. If one compares that with the record of the present Government, the number of unemployed young people has fallen by over 74,000 and unemployment among 15 to 19-year-olds has fallen by almost four percentage points. Of course, one can put forward a whole lot of statistics in a debate such as this and use them, to quote from Belloc, like a drunk uses a lamp post-for support rather than illumination. It is a debate which requires a lot of illumination because many complex issues are involved. The fact of the matter is that the improvement in youth unemployment under the present Government is due to the improvement in the general state of the economy and the economic growth rates, which the Government has presided over. Senator Walsh has already dealt with this question in an earlier answer. I might just refer to the part of Senator Foreman's question relating to the complexities involved. In Australia often a single issue or a single reason is ascribed as the reason for youth unemployment. I draw the honourable senator's attention to the fact that a recent study done by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, for example, indicates that aggregate demand-that is the general state of the economy-is consistently the single most important influence on youth unemployment. I also draw the Senate's attention to a recent study of the Bureau of Labour Market Research which was done here and which draws attention to the complexities of this issue. It says that if we try through specific policies to deal with youth unemployment we are perhaps just imposing additional strains on other sectors of the labour market. The study shows that the problems are very complex, just as Senator Foreman suggested in his question. A whole range of factors is contributing to youth employment and there is a whole range of prescribed solutions, none of which in isolation necessarily will work. That does not in any sense detract from the seriousness of the problem. No government can do that. Every senator in this room who thinks about it knows that the opportunities available to young people in terms of employment now are infinitely less than they were 10 to 20 years ago. I believe that that will be a continuing situation, probably for the remaining years of this century. That is something that has to be faced in terms of provision of opportunities by governments. Senator Foreman concluded his question by asking what this Government had done in terms of schemes, if you like, to try to alleviate youth unemployment. I do not have the precise figures with me in relation to the amount of money that the Government has put into apprenticeship training schemes and things of that kind. I recall answering a question, I think from Senator Foreman, on this matter a month or two ago. I will obtain those figures. There have been significant increases in the amounts of money attributed to those schemes. If Senator Foreman wants a more detailed answer I will obtain the figures and provide them to him. I conclude by saying that the issue of unemployment amongst young people is not , in my view or the Government's view, susceptible to glib and easy solutions. I for my own part do not reject the suggestion that of course the level of youth wages in Australia would be a contributing factor amongst many. Senator Harradine —Of course it is not. I can prove it is not. Senator BUTTON —Senator Harradine can prove it is not. In the face of that fierce opposition from the Independent senator, I blanch. Let me say, as I have said earlier, that a number of factors go to this question, and I believe they are all worthy of examination by honorary senators, not just any glib cynical solution. Senator TOWNLEY —The Minister for Social Security will remember that on previous occasions I have questioned the sense in paying pensions to people who live outside Australia. Is the Minister able to say how the assets test will apply to people who live outside Australia? How can all their assets be assessed when they live so far away from this country? Does this not once again point to two things: Firstly, the madness of paying a full pension to people who choose to live overseas-the people of Australia do not get any benefit from the spending of such pensions within this country-and, secondly, the madness of instituting the assets test? Finally, will the Minister advise the Senate whether the people that we call the 'pension police' will be sent overseas at government expense to examine the assets of pensioners who live overseas? Will they travel first class or economy and just how much will it cost this country to examine the assets of pensioners overseas? Senator GRIMES —There are several aspects of Senator Townley's question, parts of which he has brought up before. I would like first to point out that Senator Townley, when talking about paying pensions overseas, always talks about age pensions, invalid pensions and the like. He never mentions the fact that pensions are paid to ex-Governors-General overseas at considerable expense. He apparently thinks that is all right. He apparently thinks it all right to pay pensions to ex-politicians who live overseas. Senator Townley —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator can dish it out; he should sit down and take it. Senator Townley —I will take it from Senator Grimes any time he likes to dish it out. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will take his point of order. Senator Townley —Over the last few days in this place we have seen Ministers spend a lot of time not answering the questions that are asked. I asked a question and I expected it to be answered in a sensible way, not in the way the Minister is answering it. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I am specifically answering the first point that Senator Townley made, namely, that it is madness for this country to pay pensions overseas. I point out that he specifically talks about social security pensions. He never talks about paying pensions to the likes of Sir John Kerr or to those politicians who are overseas. He never talks about that. He talks only about those people who qualify for portable pensions. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Since the first point of order, I think it is quite obvious that Senator Grimes is now debating the question. I ask you to remind him of that provision in the Standing Orders and let him answer the question. The PRESIDENT —At this stage I think Senator Grimes is entitled to make the comment he is making. Senator GRIMES —I have made that point. The second point I would make is that those people who have portable pensions which are paid overseas-I point out that they were paid by previous conservative governments in this country as well as by Labor governments-have qualified for those pensions by working in this country as taxpayers and for all those years contributed to this country. Senator Townley's continual campaign against portable pensions, I believe, is unfair and gets him nowhere with those pensioners who have contributed. Senator Chaney —Answer the question. Senator GRIMES —I am answering it. The honourable senator has attacked portable pensions again. The second part of the question he asked is whether the assets test will apply. The answer is that it will apply. It will apply as the test applies to pensions overseas. We have social security officers overseas now to apply the income test. They will equally apply the assets test. Senator Townley' s reference to pensions police is nonsense and he knows it. The assets test will be applied by officers of the Department. Once the assets test is established a staff of approximately 300 will apply the test. The people who are in our overseas offices are already applying the income test. They can apply the assets test just as easily as they can the income test. I think this is typical of the attack we have seen recently by members of the Opposition opposed to people who happen to live overseas but, in particular, opposed to those people who were born overseas and who have returned to their place of birth. When pensions are paid to them, I remind Senator Townley, they do not get the benefits of our universal health insurance system. They do not get the fringe benefits which are available to pensioners in this country. If they had remained in this country they actually would have cost this country and the taxpayers more. The policy of paying portable pensions has been a policy which has been agreed to by both sides of this Parliament with the exception of Senator Townley . I wish that Senator Townley would get up some time and question some of the other pensions that are paid overseas, pensions that are paid to previous Governors-General, to previous public servants, and to previous politicians. Indeed, I wish there were some questions about private superannuation which is paid overseas from this country and from which, to use Senator Townley's term, this country is not getting the benefit. The assets test will be applied to those overseas. It will be applied by the officers we have overseas now. Senator COOK —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to Mr Howard's Press statements of 16 and 19 July on the Budget deficit. In those Press statements Mr Howard referred to the Hawke Goverment's additional $2.5 billion spending in the 1983-84 Budget. What were the main components of that additional spending? What sort of cuts would have been required to reduce the deficit to the $5.5 billion figure that Mr Howard claimed would have been attained without Labor's additional spending? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have seen reports of Mr Howard's address to the Press Club of weeks ago when he said: I believe the Budget deficit is at least $1 billion to $1.5 billion higher than desirable. He also said: This is a pre-election Budget for the present. The costs will be paid later. I must observe here that it must take a particularly thick hide, even for a politician in Mr Howard's position, to make a comment like that. The last Budget that he introduced contained a series of tax concessions aimed at a variety of politically sensitive groups, the additional cost of which in the next financial year was in excess of $2 billion. That, of course, made a major contribution to the impending $10 billion deficit that this Government inherited from Mr Howard when it took office. I would have thought that Mr Howard was about the last person in the world who should be alleging censoriously that any particular Budget was a Budget for the present with the cost to be paid for later because he is the record holder for all time in that area. However, his earlier point, that the deficit should be $1 billion to $1.5 billion less than it in fact is, is one that might be shared by many people who do not have a partisan interest in the Government or the Budget, as Mr Howard does. That is not a view that I share, but if it is to be proposed seriously that the defict should be $1.5 billion less than it is, those people who propose it have an obligation to describe to the public how they would arrive at that lower figure. It would be possible to come in with a deficit $1.5 billion smaller if all those things were done: The increased allowances to special security recipients, be they pensioners or not, who are paying rent and have dependants, were cancelled; the first home owners assistance scheme, costing $ 265m this year, was cancelled; the community employment program was cancelled; and the increases in welfare housing funds were cancelled. If all those things were done, a Budget deficit of the order of $1.5 billion less would be achievable. If Mr Howard believes that all those things should be done, there is a responsibility for him to say so. It is not the view of this Government that all those things should have been be done. Nor, incidentally, is it the view of this Government that the macro economic situation justified a degree of fiscal stiumlus reduced by $1.5 billion. Perhaps that is a separate question. Mr Howard , I suppose, could have reduced the deficit by that magnitude if he had chosen to increase some other tax and, indeed, that seems to be what he had in mind because he said during the question and answer session-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. We now have a Government Minister idling away the time of the Senate and the Question Time available to us by making hypothetical assumptions about what the Opposition might do. He has said nothing which relates to the administration of his own affairs. It may be that he is predicting what may be contained in a mini-Budget if Labor were returned to office and had to re-write the Budget early next year. This has nothing to do with his portfolio responsibilities. It is just a pathetic attempt to make politics out of Question Time and to waste time. The PRESIDENT —I have listened to the question carefully. The Minister is, in fact, responding to the question, but I would ask him to cut his remarks as short as possible because there have been only a limited number of questions available today and time is running out. I call the Minister representing the Treasurer. Senator WALSH —I am not about to delve into hypothetical speculation. What I am about to do is to quote what the shadow Treasurer said on 29 August in his views on revenue raising. He said: The economic policy statement- and I interpolate that that is the coalition's economic policy statement- included the commitment to a broadening of the tax base under a future Coalition government. That from the shadow Treasurer is a statement of intent on behalf of a coalition government. Again, many people might agree with that, but I think it is a bit irresponsible to talk about broadening the tax base, by which he means principally consumption taxes or sales taxes without considering the fact that under present arrangements they would flow in to the consumer price index and wage indexation, and thereby stimulate inflation in a way very similar to what the last government did in 1978. But most important of all, if the Opposition is going to argue that there should be a substantial reduction in the Budget deficit, and if it wishes to be taken seriously, it should explain away the contradiction between that line of argument and the assertion by the Opposition Leader that the-- Senator Chaney —I take a point of order, Mr President. You have indicated to the Minister that he should bring his answer to a close. He is wilfully totally ignoring that suggestion. I suggest you call him to order and sit him down. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister has answered the question and he is starting to get into the realm of debate. I ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion. Senator WALSH —I shall, very quickly, Mr President. If the Opposition Leader's policy were adopted, in fact tax revenue in a full year would be reduced by a further $4 billion and the deficit, other things being equal, would be increased accordingly. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, as a matter of novelty, I shall ask a Minister a question relating to his portfolio. I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Government's claim that the Special Minister of State, following his making a false Customs declaration, was treated in an identical manner to the way in which any other defaulter would be treated. I refer also to the papers on the Young affair which were tabled by the Prime Minister last week and by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and in particular to the file note of the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce, Mr Hayes, dated 6 July 1984. In this minute did Mr Hayes advise the Minister that if the duty exceeded $500 'seizure and prosecution action would be the only avenue of process'? I ask whether Mr Hayes's file note contains the following comment: The Minister explored with me whether there was room for honest mistakes by Mr Young. I ask the Minister: Does he normally ask his departmental Secretary whether Customs defaulters have made honest mistakes and, if not, how can he still maintain that the Special Minister of State was treated in an identical manner to the way in which any other Customs defaulter would be treated? Senator BUTTON —I have certainly not made any claim that Mr Young was treated in an exactly identical way with the way in which any other person who found himself making a misleading Customs declaration would be treated. Mr Young was the subject of a whole range of special treatment. Even the Opposition sitting at a Townsville hotel set up a special committee to inquire into Mr Young. So, of course, he was not treated like everybody else. He had the full glare of the Opposition's intelligentsia shining on his problem. Senator Chaney confuses what the Government subsequently said with what I said when this matter was drawn to my attention first on 5 July. On that occasion I said that Mr Young is to be treated by Customs like any other passenger. That was the comment which I made to the Collector of Customs on that date. If I might say so, Senator Chaney tends to turn Question Time in this Senate into a sort of embryonic law moot for a meeting of Young Liberals in some provincial town in Western Australia with the sort of questions that are asked about this matter. I might just remind Senator Chaney of the questions which he has asked me about this matter. The first question suggested that in some way I tried to 'verbal', to use an expression which Senator Chaney might remember from his law student days, out of which he never seems to have grown-- Senator Chaney —Why did you dictate the statement? Senator BUTTON —I did not dictate the statement, and that was the answer to the question. Senator Chaney —You did dictate the statement. It says so in the papers. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator says that it says in the papers that I dictated the statement? Senator Chaney asked me a question about it and I gave him an answer and that is my answer as to what happened. When asking the next question in this place about this issue Senator Chaney held up a couple of documents and said: 'Document A is inconsistent with document B'. 'What are you going to do about that?', he asked. I said, as a matter of courtesy which I extended to Senator Chaney because he cannot understand the documents himself, that I would have a look at those documents and see whether I thought there were inconsistencies in them. I have not done that yet because I had better things to do over the weekend. I went to the football match on Sunday. In the course of time I will answer that silly question I was asked last week, because that is all it was. If there were any inconsistencies in the documents they were addressed by Mr Black, QC, in the course of his inquiry. If the honourable senator wants to come in here and attack Mr Black, he can do that. Senator Chaney —I am attacking you. Senator BUTTON —You are not doing very well; you are attacking Mr Black. The fact of the matter is that all these documents were before Mr Black and they are now before the Parliament. I suppose this Committee which was established in Townsville is still poring over them with microscopes, trying to find some inconsistencies. If there were inconsistencies in them, those inconsistencies came before Mr Black and he dealt with them. If the honourable senator wants to come in here and attack Mr Black he can do that, but he should not trundle it up like some pathetic Trojan horse in the guise of questioning me about what took place. The fact of the matter is, as I have said, that we have never said subsequently that Mr Young was treated in exactly the same way as any ordinary citizen. No ordinary citizen gets the benefit of an inquiry by the Liberal Party into how he filled in a Customs declaration. Senator Chaney —You told us that on 5 July that is what you said. Senator BUTTON —I will say it again for Senator Chaney's benefit: I said on 5 July to the Comptroller-General of Customs that, as far as I was concerned, Mr Young was to be treated like any ordinary passenger. That is what I said on 5 July, the first date on which this matter came to light. Senator Chaney does not seem to have got past that first date in any of the questions he has asked in this Parliament. That is what I said on 5 July, and I now say that in the light of what developed Mr Young was not so treated, and I have said why today. I just go back to the question I was asked on Friday, that is, is there an inconsistency between what the Comptroller-General of Customs said and what Mrs Young said in her evidence before Mr Black? If there is an inconsistency, so what? The issues have been pronounced on by Mr Black in his inquiry and he has said in his report what he regarded as relevant and what he regarded as not relevant. What he did not regard as relevant is preoccupying the Opposition, with its puerile questions on this issue. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister has just told us that on 5 July he said that Mr Young would be treated as any ordinary passenger. Does he agree that, in accordance with this note signed by Mr Hayes, on 6 July he discussed the matter with the Secretary to his Department and explored with the Secretary to his Department whether there was room for honest mistakes by Mr Young? Is that normal? Senator BUTTON —I will have to go through it again, Mr President, because again Senator Chaney has sought to misrepresent what I said. What I said in the telephone conversation with the Comptroller-General of Customs on 5 July was that Mr Young was to be treated like any ordinary passenger. As I said in the Senate a few weeks ago, members of the Opposition find it very difficult to imagine that I might have behaved in that way when they have an appalling record of behaving in exactly the opposite way when in government. When they were in government they tried to conceal things for seven months, and they expect us to behave in exactly the same way as they did in government. Well, we are not as shonky as that lot. On 5 July I said precisely that to the Comptroller-General of Customs. I do not remember whether on 6 July I had a discussion with Mr Hayes , the Comptroller-General of Customs, about value for duty and the way the matter should be dealt with. I probably did; certainly I would have at one time. The point is whether I conveyed that information to Mr Young when I found it out . That is what the honourable senator should be asking me about if he wants to show an intelligent interest in this debate. That is the relevant question which I ought to be asked, but he has not asked that at any stage. Senator Chaney —It has been answered already. Senator BUTTON —Who by? Senator Chaney —It was done. Senator BUTTON —There is no doubt whatsoever, according to the evidence given to the Black inquiry, that Mr Young was told about the significance of the $500 in respect of value for duty. There is no doubt about that at all. The relevant question, if Senator Chaney wants to go on with this line of questioning in the Senate, is whether I told him that. That would be the significant question, but I have not been asked that. The relevant question is whether I told him. The answer, for the honourable senator's benefit, is no, I did not tell him that. I had no discussion with Mr Young about that. The fact of the matter is that yes, he was told that. Many people who make a mistake in a Customs declaration are told that by Customs officers. They are told whether they are likely to attract the method of penalty under section 209 of the Customs Act or not. Senator McINTOSH —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows upon the questions asked by Senator Tate and Senator Chipp. Given the recent statement by the United States Department of Defense that the President has the right to initiate a nuclear first strike without first consulting Congress, does this not imply that the Australian Government would also not be consulted in the event of such a first strike? In the light of this, will the Australian Government reconsider its continued maintenance of United States Military bases at Pine Gap, North West Cape and Nurrungar, as these bases constitute a vital part of the United States nuclear first strike capacity, and are supposedly subject to joint United States -Australian control? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not part of the Australian Government's understanding of the use of these bases that they do have that role or capacity. I think I have made that clear in answer to numerous previous questions. I will refer Senator McIntosh's question to the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence in order to see what further information in response to his question they might be willing to provide. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the reports of last week regarding a breakdown in negotiations between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry over the application of the recent decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on job protection in the key metal industry award. Is the Minister able to advise us on the current position on this matter. Are reports of a threatened national metal industry stoppage correct? Is the Government contemplating any action in view of the bitter disagreement between the parties in this significant first case? In general, is the Minister able to advise us of any developments that have taken place since those reports of last week? Senator BUTTON —All I am able to advise about this matter is that the CAI and others sought a reopening of the case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commission declined to do that. However, in respect of a number of details emanating from the decision, the Commission said that it would be happy to hear the views of the parties in relation to the drafting of detailed implementation of the decision. As I understand it, a conference was called before Mr Justice Maddern to discuss those drafting questions. Not a great deal of agreement was reached at that conference between the parties-that is, the CAI , the ACTU and others. It was decided that each party should prepare its own draft version of how the decision should be implemented and that they should come back at a later stage with their draft versions for a further go at it, as it were. As I understand it, that is the position at present. I have heard nothing about a national metal trades stoppage on the issue. When looking at the decision regarding retirement benefits or retrenchment pay it is important to consider that a number of principles are involved which adversely affect industry in some ways but which also, I would think, provide benefit to industry in other ways. That is true on both sides. But I take it that Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's question was directed to the mechanics of what is happening now rather than the principles involved. If Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle wishes to have further information, I will seek it from the Minister. Senator GARETH EVANS —Last Friday, Senator McIntosh asked the Government to give an assurance that it is not considering supplying the Royal Australian Navy with a Tomahawk cruise missile, as reportedly advocated by the Chief of the Naval Staff. In reply, the Minister for Defence has advised me that Australia's maritime strategic strike capability is considered to be appropriate and adequate for our present needs, as evidenced by, firstly the existence of our F111C aircraft when fitted with the Harpoon missiles; secondly, the imminent introduction of the FA18 aircraft, also to be fitted with Harpoon and able to operate from new airfields being developed in northern Australia; thirdly, the existence of the P3C aircraft with Harpoon; fourthly, the existence of the Oberon submarines with Harpoon and Mark 48 torpedoes; and, finally, the existence of Navy destroyers fitted with Harpoon. Senator GRIMES —Today in Question Time Senator Walters asked me a question-and I think Senator Messner asked a question of my colleague Senator Button-about some figures produced by the Parliamentary Library on the tax liability of pensioners . I think it is worth while to give a preliminary answer. Of course, some pensioners under the existing scheme will have their tax liability increased. But I point out that what is important to pensioners is their disposable income. Their tax liability will be increased because they get more pension and more income, but the disposable income, using the example given by Senator Messner- the single pensioner with $20 a week of private income- increased by 13.1 per cent between 1982-83 and 1984-85. One may ask whether Senator Messner and the Opposition would prefer that we did not provide pension indexation or the $2.50 a week pension increase so that pensioners did not have to pay any additional tax. As I pointed out in my previous answer, a non-pensioner with an income of $5, 811 in 1984-85-that is, the pension plus $20 a week-pays more tax than a pensioner with such an income because of the existence of the pensioner tax rebate of $250. This gives special tax treatment to pensioners and its primary purpose is to ensure that maximum rate pensioners with no private income do not have to pay tax. This, of course, is the case. In this year's Budget the Government increased the level of income at which the special rebate begins to shade out from $5,428 to $5,534. This will be of benefit to a significant number of pensioners, including the cases brought forward by Senator Messner. Of course , other measures have been taken to introduce rebates for unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries to ensure that maximum rate beneficiaries in those cases would not have to pay tax. The maximum rate beneficiaries who receive no private income and who receive supplementary allowances and additional benefits for children were required to pay tax under the previous Government. It did nothing about them when it introduced the pensoner tax rebate. We did something about them last year and this year and we will continue to do so and to ensure that pensioners receive real increases in disposable income each year. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a statement concerning a newspaper report. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —In the Canberra Times of Saturday last, in an article headed ' Student Union Bill Criticised', I was quoted as saying that my Party would ' certainly be supporting the Opposition amendments'. However, in my speech recorded in Hansard of last Friday, I stated: The Australian Democrats strongly support the notion of voluntary organisation. We believe that it is a fundamental aspect of any society that membership of any organisation . . . be on a voluntary basis. . . . . . . . it is very clear from the responsible officers of both the ANU and the CCAE that there will be . . . no compulsory element . . . Officers . . . have assured me that it is their continuing policy . . . that there will be no compulsory payment as a condition of enrolment. . . . . Indeed, without that assurance the Australian Democrats would not have agreed to vote for the Bills. I also indicated: . . . the Australian Democrats will support the Government on this legislation with the proviso that we support it only because those institutions have indicated that they will not be requiring compulsory membership. Not only did I state that on Friday, but when a vote was taken just after 4 p.m. on Friday the Australian Democrats opposed the only amendment put by the Opposition. Australian Associated Press Pty Ltd has accepted responsibility for the story and I understand went to a great deal of trouble to correct the error once it was discovered. I accept AAP's assurances on that. Unfortunately, the story was still carried in the Canberra Times and it created an impression contrary to the facts. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Jack Evans proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The economic betrayal of Australian families and young people by the Australian Government. 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 JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.16) —The subject of the matter of public importance 'The economic betrayal of Australian families and young people by the Australian Government' is a major criticism of this Government which promised so much to the aspiring young people of this nation. But it is also a criticism of previous governments which have had a policy of deliberate creation of unemployment as an economic tool. Over recent years we have seen the rise and fall of what was known as the dole bludger syndrome, where we blamed the unemployed for the plight that they had got into. We have recently partially escaped from that syndrome, but not right around Australia as there are still some who blame the unemployed for the position they are in. Today I wish mainly to look for solutions. I would like this to be a concrete, positive and forward looking debate. I would like to have the support of all parties in looking forward to 1985, in particular, as a turning point when we can help the unemployed youth. Senator Cook —Take 'betrayal' out of the statement. Senator JACK EVANS —I begin by talking about the effect of unemployment on the family. I think it is appropriate for us to see what happens at the micro level as well as at the macro level. I am sure Senator Cook would be as aware as anybody in the Senate at this moment that there is a feeling of betrayal by Australian governments. There is absolutely no doubt that people feel betrayed not just by this Government but by all governments-the people who make the decisions which determine the level of unemployment in this country. It is no good bleating on behalf of one government. We, as parliamentarians, are partly responsible and the governments of today and yesterday in the main share that responsibility. Let us look at the effect of unemployment on the family and see for the moment what happens when a breadwinner parent of any age is retrenched. The effect on that individual who goes home and announces that he has been retrenched, is devastating. Unfortunately in my profession over the years, I have been witness to that impact on individuals right across the spectrum-young people, teenagers, and those through to 50, 55 and 60 years of age, who are suddenly thrown out as they have lost their jobs. But it does not stop there as that effect flows on to the spouse, which in turn creates disharmony within the family. At first there is compassion and understanding but after a while it goes beyond what any human being can bear and results in a very sad breaking up of the relationship. It also has a flow-on effect to the children of the unemployed breadwinner, who suffer dramatically. They are suddenly deprived of all sorts of things that they had come to take for granted. Suddenly they are at a disadvantage in their own group; they cannot do many of the things that they would like to do and that they are used to doing. So they bring that disenchantment back into the family, which adds to the impact of unemployment on that family. That applies to any breadwinner. Now let us look at another group: Young people who cannot get a job, who have left school with high hopes, ready to take on the world and ready to start contributing to that world. They apply for a job and are knocked back. They apply for another job and are knocked back. It is a case of job after job, rejection after rejection. Quite frequently this results in a lack of compassion on the part of employers and, it is sad to say, sometimes, government officers. One can imagine the effect on these people. It results in a drop in morale, a lowering of self-esteem and a drop in confidence. They become less and less likely to get a job as each week and each month goes by. They become less and less likely to get any job because they join what has become known in this country as the ranks of the unemployable. What a devastating reflection that is on this society-we now have a category of people known as the unemployables. They have become unemployable because of what we have done to them from the day that they left school. Some of them find alternatives to unemployment. Some of them take up prostitution. Some of them deliberately get pregnant. Some of them escape from the real world through drugs . To pay for those drugs, some of them as teenagers take up crime. Some of them make the ultimate escape and commit suicide. It is little wonder that families fall apart under this sort of pressure. It is little wonder that young people drop right out of our society. I believe, I know that the Australian Democrats believe and I am certain that all Australians with any compassion believe, that any person who wants to work must be allowed to work, for a whole host of reasons. Let us look at the broader reasons. We cannot afford to ignore the productive input of all of our people in this country. We do not just need job creation schemes, although they are important. What we need to do is to change the whole pattern of employment in this country. We have to break down a whole series of barriers that we have created. This is the tragedy for these people; the barriers are artificial. They are put there by decision makers, by power people in this community, to make it very difficult for us to increase the number of jobs available. I will illustrate one of the patterns of employment that could be changed to allow many more people into the employment field. We could at the stroke of a pen introduce job sharing on a very wide scale in this country; it would be possible. I do not think that the Government has any inherent antagonism to the concept of job sharing. Certainly the community at large has no antagonism or antipathy to it. But there is an artificial barrier: It is the artificial barrier of trade unionism, which sees its employed members at risk if job sharing comes in without all the protections in the world for those who currently have jobs. There is nothing to stop this Government from introducing job sharing tomorrow if it is willing to take on those militant unions which still oppose the concept . At the same time we could introduce plans for reduced hours for those who prefer to work fewer than 35, 38 or 40 hours a week. Such people could work for pro rata salaries on those reduced hours. We could introduce earlier retirements . We could introduce something that the Australian Democrats have proposed already to this Parliament in our private member's Bill-machinery for collective agreements which would allow for different kinds of employment agreements, which may take into account reduced rates but which would have compensating factors, which would allow both employers and employees to come to an agreement in harmony with their respective needs, not necessarily to meet the needs of the trade union leaders. What is desperately needed in this country is a plan for the future, a plan with long term programs linking future work avenues. There is nothing to be gained by teaching people skills they will never use in their careers or in their private lives. What is needed is a linkage between future work avenues and , from that, future employee skills, and our current education programs. Link those into a plan for the future and we have a chance of coming out of this dreadful state we are in with our high unemployment rate. I will run through the effects of youth unemployment right across the community . First is the effect on the young people themselves, the frustration of not being able to get a job, the demoralisation and the apathy that flows automatically from that kind of frustration. The loss of self-esteem that one inevitably suffers when one has been rejected many times leads to a loss of confidence in the community on the part of the individual concerned. Regrettably and sadly, the flow-on from this is the loss of that person's affinity with his family. That is why we have so many family breakdowns, why we are losing our family structures in which people could rely on relatives to help them out of a difficult situation. What happens with long term unemployment is that young people particularly become disenchanted with their families, and that is reciprocated to the point where they leave their families. There is also an effect on the other family members, with strained relations, a feeling that the unemployed person is getting a handout and becoming a mendicant to the family. There is a gradual loss of the affection and love between the unemployed person and the other members of his family. The effect flows wider than that. It flows on to the community, where we have disaffected individuals and groups of individuals who are unemployed, and we have people who are literally drop-outs from our community. We find a very marked effect in certain areas. The unemployed are more likely to drop out of things such as sport and cultural and social activities with their peer group. They are the people most likely to drop out of the education system, even part time education. There is a flow-on effect on the economy, with reduced productivity, which stands to reason if only 90 per cent of the people who want to work are actually in the work force. We have payouts instead of revenue coming in through taxes so that the whole economy suffers. Of course, looking to the future, our greatest resource potential is being reduced, being sacrificed, because of lower educational and skill levels. One further flow-on effect is on future generations. Nobody knows what that effect will be. Nobody can predict what the next decade will bring to this country if we do not solve this problem in the very near future. We could get an indicator from a couple of areas around the world. One is Ireland where we can see the tragedy of youth unemployment. The unemployed there become not just disenchanted unemployed, but literal destroyers of people and property who carry guns and other weapons. That is the future that could be ahead of our young people. I do not want to paint a picture of total gloom and misery. The picture that I have portrayed is real, but there is a possible turning point. The year 1985 is the International Year of Youth. This country needs a commitment from all political parties. The Australian Democrats are willing to be part of a non- partisan program-not just a point-scoring exercise to take into this coming election campaign-which will have the support of all political parties and all people across Australia. I know very well that it will have the support of the churches, if we can accept a statement made this week by the four major Australian church groups, the Anglicans, the Roman Catholics, the Uniting Church and the Australian Council of Churches. In the 1984 Social Justice Statement, ' It's a Rocky Road-Young People in Australia', they declared that: . . . if young people suffered from too much attention some years ago, now the current youth generation runs the risk of neglect. That is the truth. We need the dedication to resolve the problem right now. I would like to offer one method of solving this problem. We can introduce a program in 1985 if we start planning here and now. There is a program in Queensland produced by the Australian Democrats called 'Work About', which tackles youth problems on a constructive basis. It looks at the problems of unemployment through eyes that youth will accept. It offers to those aged between 17 and 21 the opportunity to gain work experience, to escape from their existing world and to go out into rural areas and regional towns. It offers them the opportunity to get away from their failure environment, which may include drugs and crime, into a new environment with new people and exciting opportunities. It offers them the opportunity to work, to contribute to society, to develop self-esteem and life skills, and to gain a greater awareness of the country in which they live and the people who populate it. The scheme would not be compulsory but it would be attractive enough to entice people to want to get into it. Those who engage in the scheme would undertake community projects in groups of 12 and would receive free board and lodging and $2 a day. At the end of the nine-month period they would receive $1,000. That would cost this country no more than the existing dole payments. The program would link with the technical and further education system so that participants could develop their skills and knowledge at the same time. They would not compete with normal projects where unions would fear interference with their members' employment prospects. These types of schemes have been introduced and are running successfully now in Canada and the United States of America. Mr President, I seek leave to table a 'Workabout' paper which describes in detail how the scheme works. I seek leave also to incorporate in Hansard pages 1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 of that paper. Leave granted. The pages read as follows- WORKABOUT Introduction Unemployment amongst young people is a critical issue in Australia today. This is not to underestimate the problems of the older unemployed; however the younger unemployed suffer additional disadvantages which in the long-term will create serious disruption in our society. Firstly the younger unemployed are caught in the classic catch-22 of requiring work experience to obtain a job but firstly requiring a job to gain that experience. Secondly the continual round of job interviews with up to 30 failures for every acceptance generates a pre-programming of failure. Even after obtaining a job many young people feel they will fail in it. Thirdly there is a lack of conditioning to cope with working regular hours. A long period of unemployment conditions the young to irregular activities with little long-term planning. Fourthly the young want to feel that they are contributing something of value to their community and that they will eventually be able to share in the wealth of our nation. Continual unemployment very quickly kills off both self respect and loyalty to our community. The workabout program-whilst recognising that the solution to unemployment requires a greater long-term effort than that being applied-seeks to relieve the symptoms of unemployment for the young and allow them the opportunity to participate directly in our community activities. About Workabout The workabout program will offer young Australians between 17 and 21 the opportunity to: gain work experience and diverse and interesting work environments; release themselves for a clear nine months from the soul-destroying rounds of failed job applications and interviews; develop the capacity to work regular hours; contribute directly to society through valuable and appreciated community projects; develop self-esteem and life's skills; and gain a greater awareness of their country. How the aims will be achieved 1. Through Travel: Participants will travel to different communities in three different regions of the country over a nine month period. 2. Through Work: Participants will undertake community projects in conjunction with local community groups. In addition experience will be gained through day visits and on-site work in a variety of local industries. 3. Through Group Living: Participants will work and live in groups of 12 and share their experiences and responsibilities with other group members. Each group of 12 will be drawn from the diverse socio-economic, religious and racial groups represented in the Australian community. 4. Through Learning Programs: Participants will be expected to take part in a core of learning subjects covering time planning, money control, budgeting, interview skills and personal development. 5. Through Community Integration: Participants will work and meet dozens of different people and learn to appreciate the value of new places, different ways and diverse ideas as they serve and live in their host communities. * * * After the Workabout Program Although Workabout does not aim to directly create long term employment opportunities, it will provide both a development and fulfillment opportunity and connections with local business communities. Businesses will be encouraged to take an active interest in Workabout as well as providing jobs for people who have completed the program. This will ensure that those who take part in Workabout not only benefit from the program but also have an increased chance of securing employment upon completion. In particular, those who complete the program but still cannot obtain employment will have reached a higher level of maturity and self-esteem which will allow them to continue developing personal skills and being involved in community works. In addition the voluntary community committees will be encouraged to continue as co-operatives after projects are completed. The co-operatives task would be to seek on a 'one-to-one' basis to find jobs for unemployed young people. The key would be to link one employed person with one unemployed person until a job is found. Conclusion Workabout is a fresh approach to the serious problem of youth unemployment that faces our community. The following figures bear out the seriousness of the problem: Unemployed people in the 15-19 age category as at May 1984. unemployed up to three months 94,437 unemployed from 3-9 months 91,433 unemployed over 9 months 31,500 Total 218,370 This program is all about learning to work and learning to live. Although Workabout will not provide the cure to unemployment, it will relieve the symptoms until the cure is found. The Workabout program has been drawn up by community workers with experience in service clubs, the churches and businesses. It is based on the Katimavik Program in Canada, the Civilian Conservation Corps in the U.S.A., service club projects and youth training schemes. Workabout is a realistic alternative to the alienation of our young people. It will provide self esteem, self development, respect for others, assets in successful completion of community projects, an understanding of our country and hope for young people. Within young people it will replace the pre-programming of failure and despair with an awareness of achievement and self fulfillment. Senator JACK EVANS —I thank the Senate. This Australia of ours needs to provide for its young people a work or education guarantee until they turn 21. I believe that we have that obligation to all our young. A commitment by all Australians, particularly parliamentarians, to a launching pad to employ all young people is essential at this time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.36) —I rise today on behalf of the Government to oppose the matter of public importance submitted by Senator Jack Evans which refers to: The economic betrayal of Australian families and young people by the Australian Government. The first and obvious question is: Betrayal by whom? The honourable senator certainly cannot claim that the present Government has betrayed Australian families and young people. It is an absolute nonsense to make the suggestion that the present Government, which has increased social security spending and given tax cuts in the current Budget, has betrayed Australian families and young people. I simply refer to the poll which appears on page 3 of today's Melbourne Age. It is headed: 'More expect to be better off with Labor's Budget'. It is a very striking article. It talks about people's attitudes to the current Budget and compares them with attitudes to the last two Budgets of the discredited former Treasurer, Mr Howard. The poll has some very interesting findings. For example, it says in respect of the 1984 Budget that 22 per cent of respondents felt they would be better off. It points out that in respect of the 1982 Budget only 13 per cent believed they would be better off. Indeed, in respect of the 1981 Budget, only 2 per cent of respondents believed they would be better off. The poll makes it clear that while 73 per cent thought they would be worse off under the 1981 Liberal Budget, and that 60 per cent believed they would be worse off under the 1982 Liberal Budget, only 19 per cent of respondents this year believed they would be worse off as a result of the Budget. As Senator Jack Evans's matter of public importance refers to young people in the community, I simply refer to a specific point made in the article. It states: The Budget was received particularly well with young people . . . I simply provide these figures: Thirty-six per cent of young Australians believed they would be better off as a result of the current Budget; a mere 7 per cent thought that they would be worse off. Clearly, the perception by that group in the community is that their economic circumstances are infinitely better. In fact, it was not the present Government that betrayed Australia's young people; it was the previous Government which did so. I refer to the single rise in 7 years in the single unemployment benefit for young people. I could also refer to attempts by the previous Government to abolish the community youth support scheme which was kept on only after a loud outcry by the community. I want to refer to some of the achievements of the present Government in alleviating the difficult circumstances faced by Australian families and young people. Our policies have alleviated those difficult circumstances. For example, in the year to June last 230,000 extra Australians were working. Those jobs were in both the public and private sectors. Jobs in all sectors of the economy increased under this Government. Clearly, the dependants of those extra 230,000 Australians would also have benefited. I refer also to the fact that in the short time the present Government has been in office some 8,000 more teenagers have jobs than had them when we started. The previous Government certainly cannot claim a record like that, as there was a net loss of jobs held by teenagers of staggering proportions under it. I refer to the increase in the welfare of Australian families and young people as a result of falling unemployment under this Government. From June 1983 to June this year the reduction in unemployment in this country was 60,000. Again, the many dependants of those people who have also benefited would find their economic welfare improved as a result of that reduction. Many Australian families have benefited from the one per cent reduction in home interest rates under this Government. That has had a significant effect on the disposable income of families and I, like other members of the Government, look forward to the next reduction in housing interest rates which, I believe, will be in the pipeline shortly. The most important overall impact on the economic welfare of Australian families has come as a result of the staggering economic growth in this country under the present Government. For example, in the 12 months to the June quarter just ended, Australia had a 10 per cent real economic growth-a phenomenal figure , the highest in the developed countries of the world and the best in this country for 25 years. That improvement has been of significant benefit to the well-being of Australians. This Budget makes a very big impact on the economic circumstances of lower income earners by introducing a 25c in the dollar tax rate. The lowest the previous Government could manage was a 30c in the dollar tax rate. This Budget provides that that 25c rate should apply to incomes up to $12,500 and thus it will have a very big impact on low income taxpayers. I point out that the cost to revenue of the restructuring of all the rates of the tax system will be $2,100m in a full financial year. This is a very big increase and it must have a beneficial effect on Australian families when it comes into force on 1 November. Indeed, the tax cuts have been structured so they provide the greatest proportion of benefits to those on the lowest incomes. It is easy to read from the tax tables that there will be a 17 per cent reduction in tax paid by the lowest income families in the work force and most taxpayers will get something of the order of $7.60 a week extra in disposable income. This is, in fact, equivalent to a 4 per cent money wage rise and that is quite an achievement in one move. Many more Australian workers on low incomes with a dependent spouse will be free from income tax in this Budget as a result of the introduction of the 25c in the dollar tax rate. My calculations are that people earning up to $8,700 will no longer pay income tax as a result of that rebate. Formerly the figure was $8,000. That is a tremendous change in the exemption level. The pensioner taxation rebate of $250 and the new rebates introduced by Senator Grimes for social security beneficiaries will, when combined with the 25c in the dollar tax rate, have a significant effect in freeing beneficiaries-those on sickness and unemployment benefits-from a taxation liability. Also, of great significance is the fact that the income threshold level for the Medicare levy has been lifted. As a result of measures in this Budget, there will be quite a large reduction in the number of Australians paying the Medicare levy. Families with two children will no longer pay the levy if their income is less than $14,460. That will free quite a number of families from an income tax liability. In respect of social security, I am very pleased to support policies of the Government which have focused the social security increases on the neediest members of the community. It is very striking that over and above the normal indexation arrangements and the normal increases in pensions and benefits for inflation, this Budget is providing something of the order of $680m extra in discretionary increases. That is a full year figure and, combined with the reduction in income tax as a result of the Budget, the total transfer back to Australian families and taxpayers will be $2,800m in a full financial year. That is a very large figure indeed. There will be significant increases, not only in age pensions, but also in sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. Senator Jack Evans referred to the serious and enormous problems faced by youth of this country, but I remind him that the previous Government only once in seven years did anything to lift the unemployment benefit for single, junior unemployed people. In this Budget we have provided an 11 per cent increase from $45 a week to $50 a week in one go. While I do not for one moment claim that that will solve the problems of the unemployed, it is certainly a significant lift in their disposable income. There are quite large increases provided in the Budget-not only this year, but there is a further forecast next year-for other unemployed members of the community. So there have been quite significant improvements in their economic welfare as a result of this Budget. The social security increases focus particularly on the neediest families in the community. The neediest people in the community tend to be those with children or who are renting private accommodation. This Budget provides that pensioners and beneficiaries shall receive $2 a week more in respect of dependent children. They will now get $14 a week per child. The mothers and guardians allowance for sole parents will be increased by $2 a week to $10, a significant increase. The maximum supplementary rental assistance to those pensioners and beneficiaries who rent accommodation has been increased from $10 to $15 a week-a 50 per cent rise in one Budget, which is an important step forward. After putting those facts on the record, it would be very hard for anyone to claim that this Government has betrayed Australian families, as Senator Jack Evans would have us believe. It is very hard to support the notion that it has betrayed Australian young people. We can dispel these claims even more by looking 12 months ahead. I believe that the policies underpinning this Budget will create further jobs and therefore improve the economic welfare of many thousands more Australians. The Budget makes the forecast that there will be another 150,000 jobs between last June and June next year, and in the social security area the Budget forecast is that instead of having an average number of 620,000 unemployed Australians, as we did in the last financial year, that figure will be reduced by 50,000 to 570,000. Nobody would say that that is the end of unemployment. Of course it is still far too high and we must be vigilant and keep pursuing policies which will have the effect of reducing unemployment. Certainly, in the last 12 months, for the 230,000 additional Australians who have entered the work force under this Government in both the private and public sectors, their economic welfare has certainly not been betrayed, and neither has the economic welfare of their dependants. Those working families on low incomes have not been betrayed. I referred earlier to the introduction of the 25c in the dollar income tax rate . That has meant there has been a significant reduction in tax and an increase in disposable income for the lowest earning members of the work force. Certainly there has been a significant rise in unemployment benefit payments to those who are presently unemployed. For example, under the present Government from November there will be an extra $30 a week for unemployed people with two children and renting private accommodation. That is quite a significant rise. When we look at an average wage earner perhaps earning $350 to $370 a week, we see that it is possible to calculate that under the present Government that person has had a $21 weekly wage rise in real after tax disposable income. That is quite a significant increase in 18 months and it comprises full wage indexation, which has been supported by this Government, unlike the previous Government which always discounted wage increases for tax factors and other factors. It also includes the $7.60 a week tax cut and the beneficial effects for lower and middle income Australians as a result of the introduction of the Medicare scheme and the effect of lower housing interest rates. So under this Government average real disposable family incomes are up in the order of $21 a week. I think they are the major points I wanted to make this afternoon. I suggest to Senator Evans that he talk to other members of his Party about their attitude to the flow of revenue into the Government coffers because on four occasions in the 18 months I have been here the Australian Democrats, in concert with the Liberal -National Party Opposition, have blocked Government revenue Bills. Senator Jack Evans —Not all the Democrats. Senator MAGUIRE —Not all of them. Senator Evans's record on this matter is pure and consistent and I applaud him for that. I hope that he will have talks with the three members of the Australian Democrats, including Senator Haines from my own State, who have consistently blocked the Government's efforts to extract revenue from tax cheats. I ask him to see whether Senator Chipp, Senator Macklin and Senator Haines can be pursuaded to reconsider their position on this legislation which has denied the Government up to $570m in revenue. If he can persuade them to change their views on that sort of legislation, I am sure that the Government will have more revenue at its disposal from tax cheats and sharks who prey upon honest taxpayers in the community to improve further the social security system of this country and the welfare of Australian families and young Australians. I hope that Senator Evans can back up the concern for young people that he expressed this afternoon by taking the case firmly and strongly to his colleagues who on four occasions now have voted to ensure that this important Government legislation is defeated and thereby denied the Government up to $570m in revenue. If he can persuade them to do that, we will be able to crack down on tax cheats and as a result more funds will certainly be available to enable the Government to increase spending on social security and to enable further income tax cuts. I believe that I have put on record this afternoon the important social security achievements that this Government made in such a short time. I have referred to the significant benefits that have been directed towards pensioners and people receiving sickness and unemployment benefits. I have referred to the $7.60 a week tax cut. I have also referred to important initiatives in respect of young unemployed people. Having put those facts on the record, I can say that I believe the Budget is supported by most Australians, certainly by those Australians on lower than average incomes. As a survey in today's Melbourne Age indicates, the young people in the community know they are better off. I believe that Australian families know they are better off. Overall, the Australian people know they are better off under the policies of this Government. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That Senator Walters be allowed to speak for not more than 20 minutes. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.54) —I thank the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) for his very generous gesture. We have just heard Senator Maguire put on the record the social security measures that the Government has taken in the latest Budget. He gave us a full description of the measures that the Government has taken in respect of the disadvantaged people in our community . All of these are band-aid measures. He also told us how the Australian Council of Trade Unions has looked after its own and insisted upon the full consumer price index rises being given to all those with jobs. We heard Senator Jack Evans give what I thought was a very thorough description of the devastating effect unemployment has not only on young people but also on middle aged people who are retrenched. Anyone who doubts how devastating that can be only has to stop for a few minutes and think how he would feel if suddenly he lost his opportunity to work. Perhaps the Government could find the answer if it had a look at the cause of these problems. I would like to read to the Senate some extracts from the report of the Director of the Institute of the Family Studies which is contained in the Institute's latest newsletter. He says: I am increasingly dismayed at the blindeye politicians of every ilk who turn to family policy issues. On the one hand is the rhetoric of each Party about the centrality of the family unit, the good deeds they will do for the families, their concern for motherhood, the welfare of the nation's children, the viability of the family home. On the other, sits an ignorance of what is happening to Australian families, of their real needs and problems and (worst of all) of the way every policy impacts on family life. He goes on to tell us of the needs based welfare system. He then says: Rarely is the central question asked-why are they dependent? He asks some questions that I think are very relevant to today's debate. He asks : Where are the funds to build adequate family support systems or to reduce economic stress? Where are the funds for marriage preparation, preventive marriage guidance programs, financial counselling and parent support? Instead, we have a meagre $3.8m for marriage counselling, a mere $80,000 for marriage education, $170,000 for a new 'advertising campaign' for marriage guidance, and as yet a vague move to establish 'family law centres', totally inadequate child care and family support services and a resentment . . . of the funds paid to supporting parents. I think it is most important that we look not at the band-aid measures that the Government has instituted in this Budget but at the deepseated problems that the families of Australia are facing. Senator Maguire told us of the job creation programs of the Government. We were promised that 500,000 jobs would be created. The people of Australia thought that meant that the unemployment rate would go down by 500,000. That, of course, is not the correct situation. It is interesting to note that over half of the jobs that have been created are in the public sector. Of course, we know that in part, because of this public sector borrowing is at an all time record. Because governments will be borrowing in competition with the private sector inflation will increase tremendously. I have already indicated that Senator Maguire spoke about the ACTU looking after its own. The ACTU is not prepared to think of the unemployed. We were told before the last election by the leader of the ACTU that his job was to look after the 90 per cent of people who were in jobs. The Government, of course, agrees with him because it has an arrangement with the ACTU to continue full indexation of wages in order to avoid some problems in the industrial field. The Government has been patting itself on the back and saying that the prices and incomes accord is doing very well. The Government is doing very well for those with jobs but it is not doing very well for those who are not in employment. An article in the Age the other day which was headed 'Hawke's brought us together, but it's only cupboard love', stresses very clearly that consultation and consensus are achieved at a price. The article says that this consensus does not come cheaply. It states: . . . new committees and councils set up to further the consensus cause will cost more than $4m this financial year. The Age says that this consensus does not come cheaply because the cost of the setting up of committees is $4m but the cost to the unemployed is a great deal more than that because of the continuation of full consumer price index wage indexation. There are other headlines which I find most interesting. At an international seminar hosted by the Institute of Family Studies Professor Shangmar-Hanleman said, when commenting on the youth of today, that their reluctance to take on marriage, child rearing and care responsibilities is a result of the failure of society to give adequate support and nourishment to those family functions. The professor stated that we are at the stage of needing new negotiations with governments regarding their relationship to the family. It is vital that any such negotiations take into account their likely impact on children. These are very important points, yet we find that negotiation with families has not occurred. Certainly negotiations with departments have taken place, and I believe that negotiations with the Office of Child Care and the Office of the Status of Women have been very thorough. But bureaucrats have a totally different concept of the family from that of the people outside. A headline in the Australian reads: 'The Budget: It's Grim News for the Single Income Family'. One very short letter on that matter says: 'The year of the family-de factos one ; families nil'. That says a tremendous amount. There are around 51 per cent of families in Australia who have dependent children and are entitled to the dependent spouse rebate. They really feel they have been neglected and betrayed by this Government because they are the families in which the mother stays home to look after her children but they have received an increase in neither the dependent spouse rebate nor the family allowance. By the end of this financial year family allowances and the dependent spouse rebate will have declined by 10. 4 per cent since March 1983 when this Government came to power. Let us look at the Government's priorities. I believe that what it is doing in many areas is very good. It has spent an additional $28m-a 72 per cent increase- on assisting the aged to be cared for in their own homes. That is excellent. I do not think any aged persons want to go into an institution before they have to . An additional $30m will go towards assisting children to be cared for outside their homes, in day care centres, but there has been nothing for families in which the spouse stays home to look after the children. An additional $7m has been spent on the dependent spouse rebate but that is only so it can be extended to de facto spouses. Yet, the Department of the Treasury tells us this is not on , that abuse in this area will be hard to overcome. Let us look at just what has happened in the tax area. I compare a family of a single income earner with a dependent spouse and child with a husband and wife, both earning. If the husband and wife who are both working earn $250 a week each before the November tax cut, they pay $26.70 a week less than a single income earner on the same total income. So a two-income family unit pays $26.70 a week less. After November it will pay $34.30 less than a single income earner on the same total wage. This is an anomaly, an injustice, that I believe cannot continue. When in government we worked hard to overcome this disadvantage. In 1979 the disadvantage to the single income earner was 50 per cent. By the time we left government in 1983 the disadvantage was down to 11 per cent. We increased the dependent spouse rebate from $400 when we came to power in late 1975 to $1,030 in the case of a dependent spouse caring for children at home. This was a great advantage and, as I said, it ended up reducing the disadvantage from 50 per cent in 1979 to just over 11 per cent when we left government. So, Mr Deputy President, the priorities of the two governments are vastly different. We are sincere when we talk about the family; we are sincere in our beliefs about what the family needs. The family needs to be given assistance so that it will not fall into the social security net. We should attempt to do that to save people from entering the social security trap. In Australia, one of every two and a half marriages ends in divorce. In the Government's own words, it is one of this country's biggest problems, and to overcome that problem the Government said, in a telex sent to us all, that it would spend $100,000 on an advertising campaign against divorce-$100,000. The Institute of Family Studies calculates that broken marriages cost Australia $1, 200m a year. And the Government is trying to overcome the problem by spending $ 100,000 on television advertisements suggesting that people go to counselling a little earlier-though it says that divorce is one of the biggest problems facing Australia at the moment! We would all agree, considering the human suffering not only of the partners but also of the children, that something more should be done than trying to overcome this problem by spending $100,000 on it. Why does the Government have these strange quirks? The previous Government steadily increased the dependent spouse rebate by an amount equivalent to well over the inflation rate, from $400 to $1,030 during the years it was in government? Why had the present Government stopped all this? The feminists on the Government benches, including Senator Giles, have said very clearly that they do not believe in the dependent spouse rebate. Senator Giles made those comments in this place and she would not deny it. She believes, and I suggest the Government believes, that the only good women do is when they are out in the work force. That is an entirely wrong concept. Senator Button —You have no basis whatsoever for saying that. Senator WALTERS —Senator Button says that there is no basis for saying that. I have just said that members on the Government benches believe the dependent spouse rebate should be wiped out. They have said very clearly that the single income earner should not receive any assistance to allow his wife to stay home to look after the children. That is a very clear indication that they believe the wife should be out working, earning her own living, and not at home looking after the children. I would be surprised if Senator Button could explain it in any other way. As I have indicated, through inflation the value of the dependent spouse rebate and the family allowance has gone down considerably during the term of this Government. When we left office the figure was $1,030. To the end of this financial year, because of inflation, the figure has declined by $107.10, which is a considerable amount. I believe this Government has to look at its priorities regarding families. In the last minute I have remaining to me I reiterate what the Director of the Institute of Family Studies said in his report: Rarely is the central question asked-why are they dependent. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The discussion on the matter of public importance is concluded. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That so much of the Sessional Order relating to the consideration of Government Papers be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) moving a motion relating to the order in which the Papers are called on by the President. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: That the Government Paper relating to the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers' Union Royal Commission transition to the National Crime Authority be first considered. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Today the Government has brought into this place, and last Friday took into the House of Representatives, a series of letters between the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, more commonly known as the Costigan Royal Commission, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and between that Royal Commission and the new National Crime Authority. In addition, I think there are letters between the Crime Authority and the Prime Minister. I understand that today in the other place further letters were tabled by the Government relating to the same sequence of correspondence, but those letters have not yet been tabled in this place. In making any comment on the letters which have been tabled, I believe it is important to note the context in which we are now able to consider them, given the receipt of the annual report of the Special Prosecutor Mr Robert Frank Redlich, for 1983-84. That report, which was put down in the Senate last week, gives a very welcome assessment of the importance and effectiveness of the Costigan Royal Commission. Mr Redlich has been working as a Special Prosecutor. Originally he was appointed by the previous Government and he has continued under the present Government. Mr Redlich's report contains a very encouraging list of successes in terms of people who have been brought to justice, people who have been convicted of criminal offences, and people who have been forced to disgorge substantial sums of money to the taxation authorities after they have gone to very considerable efforts to prevent that. Mr Redlich in his report makes a series of observations , and some of them are on the Costigan Royal Commission. He said at page 2 of his report: The work of the Costigan Royal Commission has been of inestimable public benefit. It has generated a public awareness about the type of criminal activities which threaten our society, and provided the momentum and the foundation for the creation of an effective National Crime Authority. Later he said: Over 600 charges have been laid covering 12 different areas of illegal activities. Other charges are likely to be laid. Prosecutions have been successfully completed in 6 of those areas. As I said a moment ago, I suppose one of the most pleasing aspects of the Redlich report is that a substantial amount of money has been recovered from those who had wrongfully sought to evade the payment of taxes and who had gained those moneys by illegal means. I want to make some comments on this correspondence. In the very limited time that is available to me in this sort of debate I might best do that by referring to the first of the letters tabled and the last. The first letter, dated 21 June 1984, came from the Prime Minister himself and is addressed to Mr Costigan. The Prime Minister said a number of things in that letter which I think bear out the Opposition's concern that there should be an effective transition from the work of Mr Costigan to the new National Crime Authority. On 21 June the Prime Minister said: As indicated by the above arrangements, one of the major objectives in establishing the NCA is for the Authority to preserve the records and techniques of your Royal Commission and to ensure the continuation of its work. That is the view of the Prime Minister, put down on 21 June. In that same letter he also said: . . . it is of paramount importance that the significant work initiated by your Commission should be continued by the NCA. They are the views of the Prime Minister, and they are views the Opposition would embrace. We believe it is of paramount importance that the work of the Costigan Royal Commission should be continued by the National Crime Authority. It is sobering, therefore, to find in the correspondence the Government has now tabled, at the request of the Opposition, that in the most recent letter, the one dated 5 September, from Mr Costigan to the National Crime Authority the following statement appears: I note your confidence that failure to receive briefings will not constitute a serious impairment to the work of the Authority. I do not share that view nor do I understand how it could sensibly be entertained; you will not be able, without briefing, to take on my investigations, if that is your intention. The correspondence is replete with similar warnings from Mr Costigan. In a letter dated 22 August Mr Costigan said: It follows there will not be time before 30 September for the National Crime Authority to be briefed on current operations or investigations or to gain an understanding of the higher levels of operational techniques. So far as these matters are concerned, therefore, the transition from the Commission to the Authority will fail. It is a matter of deep concern to the Opposition that there should be any risk of failure in the transition from the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. What this correspondence clearly shows is that in the view of the Royal Commissioner, Mr Costigan, that is a very real risk. He expressed his own view that the transition will, in fact, fail. That is not a satisfactory situation. I believe it is imperative that the Government ensure that there is no risk of failure in that essential transition. What Mr Redlich has shown is that there is enormous public interest in the successful prosecution of these major crimes and the recovery of moneys that have been a cost to the Australian people. I believe this correspondence shows that the Government is not living up to its responsibilities. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.19) —The Senate has before it some 21 pieces of correspondence originating from a letter from the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr Costigan's message to the Prime Minister is that if he is to do two things-that is, write his report fully and brief fully the incoming National Crime Authority-he will need more time. It is fascinating that nowhere in the other letters, whether from the Prime Minister or the National Crime Authority, has that fundamental question been addressed. The question could have been addressed very simply by saying: 'Complete your report. We will give you an extension of your commission for two or three weeks or whatever time is necessary to brief the Authority'. In other words, overcoming the problem was entirely within the hands of the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). But the 21 letters have shown a considerable conflict, without any kind of leadership from the Prime Minister. The end result is, of course, a clear statement by the royal commissioner which Senator Chaney has quoted and which reads: I note your confidence that failure to receive briefings will not constitute a serious impairment to the work of the authority. I do not share that view nor do I understand how it could sensibly be entertained; you will not be able, without briefing, to take on my investigations, if that is your intention. Nothing could be clearer than that. Some weeks beforehand Mr Costigan had written to Mr Hawke in the clearest of terms. He pointed out that the task of writing the report would occupy the remainder of his commission. He stated: It follows there will not be time before 30 September for the National Crime Authority to be briefed on current operations or investigatons or to gain an understanding of the higher levels of operational techniques. So far as these matters are concerned, therefore, the transition from the Commission to the Authority will fail. I have pointed out this problem on many occasions and there is nothing to add. The impact of that on the Authority's future operations is a matter for the Government and the Authority. The fact is that in that paragraph lies the whole story of those 21 letters. I repeat what Mr Costigan stated: I have pointed out this problem on many occasions and there is nothing to add. The important thing to add is that the Prime Minister studiously ignored the request. Indeed, the National Crime Authority, as I read the correspondence, did not support any extension of time for briefings. It said that it could do its job without any further briefing. The serious situation is that, as Mr Costigan has pointed out, there are grave difficulties. He said repeatedly that there would not be time available. For example, Mr Costigan's letter of 3 July to the Prime Minister said: I fear the time taken will be longer than you anticipate. Perhaps the most important thing in Mr Hawke's letter to Mr Costigan, in response to his statement that he would not have time, is a condolence and reference to Mr Costigan's previous illness. These words then appear: It is, of course, unfortunate that it has cut short the time remaining for your inquiries. If it is unfortunate that it has cut short the time remaining for his inquiries, why was it not incumbent upon the Prime Minister to extend the time? Of course, the finishing of the report is all-important. But the fact is that the briefing of the National Crime Authority is of abundant importance. It is strange that the Authority is not seeking an extension of time. It is important to realise from these documents that Mr Costigan has repeated that the National Crime Authority is so constrained in its powers and constricted by the law that he cannot see that it can do the job it has set out to do. I find this bundle of letters very revealing. I find it totally revealing that the Prime Minister shows no leadership and that at no time does he say: 'Let us settle this. Let the three of us get together to resolve the matter'. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.24) —I would like to say a few words about these very revealing parts of correspondence-I repeat, parts of correspondence-which have come before the Senate. I take it that we have not yet received the further correspondence which apparently took place at some earlier time between Mr Costigan and the Government and which we would also want to see. I will not go over the details of the correspondence because honourable senators have read it. One sees in that correspondence a great deal of patience, and also exasperation on the part of Mr Costigan in seeing the work which he has done so successfully in this country for four years possibly being frittered away because of the failure to follow up and have a proper period of briefing of the new National Crime Authority. It is essential that we look at this matter at this time. Many of us are concerned that the new Authority has perhaps the chance of a snow-flake in hell of succeeding in doing what the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union did and in carrying on its work. This, of course, will be the eternal indictment of this Government and its clients who have persuaded it to weaken this Authority. But we have not yet even reached the first base. We are not in a position where we can judge that. We need a joint committee of this Parliament to scrutinise and try to help that Authority to overcome what appear to be the inherent weaknesses that are placed in its way. In the correspondence Mr Costigan, after great exasperation in finding that he is not able to do all of the things that were expected of him at one time, states: . . . the transition from the Commission to the Authority will fail. That is stated in his letter of 22 August. I think that there is a real reason for that judgment being made by him. Obviously, the Authority has not yet had the type or degree of briefing that it should have had. It is remarkable that the Chairman of the Authority does not consider the need to have a briefing, not only as to the methods whereby the Costigan Commission achieved such remarkable success in the last few years, but also on the outstanding matters and the whole strategy of the campaign that it must continue and extend. It is to investigate areas which Mr Costigan could not investigate. His terms of reference were, after all, circumscribed. Areas he investigated had to have something to do with the Ship Painters and Dockers Union. That was a remarkably wide area of involvement in organised crime, but it no doubt left many other areas that one would expect the new body to investigate. If that body is not properly briefed, and if it is not able to use and pick up the valuable work that has been done and to complete it, I think we are in for a lot of trouble. It is a matter of great regret, of course, that Mr Costigan was ill and could not complete the work that he was then doing. But as Senator Sir John Carrick said, it is remarkable that the Government did not say: 'We need to extend the time to ensure that you complete the inquiry and that you complete your examination of the evidence that has been called'. We should not have to wait for many months before the new Authority is in a position to take up and perhaps obtain new references from that rather creaky inter-governmental committee-I have criticised the form in which that committee is described in the Act-and which might well lead to it never going on with those inquiries. I believe that this correspondence is most revealing in indicating that the Hawke Government is not really serious about the pursuit of organised crime, which is probably one of the worst features of Australia. The Hawke Government may suffer later from the hands of the people, but we all may suffer if this cancer in our country grows beyond control, partly due to the foolishness of the Government at this time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(4.28) —I support the remarks of my colleagues and observe that we have had not just one tabling of documents, but, as I have been advised today, a further tabling of documents. This Government has been reluctant to come clean with all the correspondence, in spite of the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the Hansard of the House of Representatives of 6 September that he would 'table . . . the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority'. I am led to believe that there have been more documents tabled today which add to the material available and which serve to emphasise the concerns which my colleague Senator Missen has just expressed. The nation has only just been learning about the extent of organised crime in Australia and, with the work of Mr Costigan and the other investigators, of the possibility that we might be able to intervene effectively to do something about it. The letters which we are now discussing in the Senate-the 21 pieces of correspondence-are extraordinary for what they reveal. This is an issue of public interest. We could ask: How is the public interest to be served best? Mr Costigan is quite clear that the pubic interest will not be served best by the processes and procedures which have been laid upon him, which have been ordained by the Government and from which it will not move. Mr Costigan says that the present procedures will not allow for the optimum pursuit of the fight against crime and will not allow for the optimum pursuit of the work he has done or the contribution he has made in trying to categorise some of the activities and in trying to intervene. Mr Justice Stewart or some other people disagree with Mr Costigan's view. I come back and ask: How do we seek to serve the public interest best on this matter when Mr Costigan says that the procedures laid down are not adequate and the Government says: 'We don't care. You will follow them in any event'. I believe we will not serve the public interest by following the course which the Government is pigheadedly taking. We will not serve the public interest by having the partial tabling of letters by the Prime Minister, with more coming out when Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, makes it clear that the letters-- Senator Button —Who is that? Senator PETER BAUME —Come on now! This is a very significant issue. Senator Button may attempt to divert us, but the fact is that Mr Peacock made it clear that there has been an incomplete tabling of documents and more documents have appeared. We wonder whether that is all. The public interest will not be served best by some fight for territory or some unresolved disagreement between those who have an interest in the matter. I suggest that the enormity and importance of this task to us all cannot be underestimated. If Mr Costigan believes, as is clear from this correspondence, that a certain process is essential for him to hand over this work, why do we not follow the process he has recommended or why do we not get adequate answers as to why a different process should be followed? If Mr Costigan believes that a certain process should be followed, what is to be lost by following it? Why are people so determined to ignore what he says and so determined to do otherwise? What reason is there for people to disagree with him ? What reason was there for the Prime Minister to table an incomplete bundle of papers last week? What reason is there for the public interest to come second to some bureaucratic fight between people on a matter which is of such critical importance to us all? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.34) —I rise to support the remarks of my colleagues in regard to the correspondence which has been tabled in the Senate, which is part of the correspondence between the National Crime Authority and the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. I want to sheet home the blame to where it lies-with both the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We should go to the beginning of this matter and analyse the techniques which Mr Costigan, the Royal Commissioner, developed thanks to the very credible efforts of the Fraser Government in its attack on organised crime. Let there be no doubt that the Prime Minister of the day, Malcolm Fraser, did not hesitate to plough into the people who needed to be ploughed into as a result of the report. He did not hold back in any way when Mr Costigan asked for further powers or further money to provide his Commission with equipment. There was no holding back on the part of Mr Malcolm Fraser, nothing like what has happened under this Government. Mr Fraser and the Liberal-National Party coalition that he led at that time can be proud of their record in dealing with the crimes disclosed by the Costigan Commission. That stands in contradiction to the efforts of this Government and this Attorney-General to hide and conceal what we do not know. But ultimately it will all be revealed, as it was in the period leading up to the election in 1975 . Senator Missen —The truth will out. Senator LEWIS —Senator Missen says the truth will out, and it certainly will. The truth is that this dispute started with the Attorney-General of this country . Mr Costigan developed a large number of expert techniques, under the Fraser Government, to investigate organised crime in this country-techniques involving the use of a very large computer with certain sophisticated software. The result was that material was able to be fed into the computer to provide what is called a database. Experts have worked out certain techniques that enable operators to use the computer to ascertain information which might trace criminals. For example, the computer could be asked what first step relationship exists between A and B. The cheques and other financial information in the computer software could then be analysed and the computer would throw out an answer showing the relationship. But the steps could go to the extent of a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth step relationship showing that ultimately A deals with B even though there might appear to be five or six intermediaries between them. This technique has been worked out over the years and that is why, when we debated this matter in the Senate, we said that the new National Crime Authority must clearly take over. Senator Evans, the Attorney-General, said right from the word go that the National Crime Authority was not going to be like the Costigan Commission. He would not accept that it would be, notwithstanding the nature of the legislation which ultimately passed through this Parliament. In fact it is very much like the Costigan Commission in the manner in which it is to conduct these investigations. The Attorney-General is the person who, right from the word go, kept telling the National Crime Authority not to be like the Costigan Commission and, in effect, started the dispute between those two bodies. That is why he is partly to blame for this situation. Finally, the Prime Minister is also to blame . Where is this man of consensus? Where has he got the three parties together- himself, the Government and the two people-to sort out this problem? What a lot of rubbish consensus is. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.38) —I want to make one or two comments on the matter that is before the Senate. I suggest that the Government has behaved quite incredibly in relation to the whole matter. I think that when Royal Commissioner Costigan set out to inquire into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union he did not realise just what would be uncovered by the investigations that subsequently- Senator Button —Nor did you. Senator JESSOP —Okay. I am very pleased that he did uncover the things that surprised us all. The Frank Costigan Royal Commission was probably getting a little too close to those people at the top of major crime in Australia. The Government was running scared on the whole issue and therefore it has come out from under. I think that is a very serious thing for any government to contemplate. Senator Kilgariff —It is too close to the bone. Senator JESSOP —It is too close to the bone, as Senator Kilgariff has said. That is the reason why the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is evading the whole issue and side-stepping the request to present the report of the Royal Commissioner before the forthcoming election because undoubtedly it would provide the Government with a considerable amount of worry, embarrassment and public concern about the whole issue. The documents that have been presented to the Senate today are interesting in many respects, particularly the letter of 5 September that Mr Costigan wrote to the Chairman and members of the National Crime Authority in which he referred to three separate matters which were raised and on which he wanted to comment. On the first matter he stated: Let me say immediately that I accept without reservation your statement that you did not intend to convey to me a request in the terms in which I understood it. My apparent mis-interpretation is regretted. So far as the draft references you have discovered in Commission files, all I can say is that an attempt was made in June to draft references which complied with the Act. I did not regard this attempt as satisfactory. They should not be treated as drafts recommended by my Commission. Secondly, he stated: I am concerned at your suggestion that I have resiled from some promise or offer as to availability for briefing. When I spoke to Messrs Bingham and Dwyer at the end of July as to the demands on the time of myself and staff in preparation of the Report, I indicated that there was a possibility that Counsel might have some time in the last week of September. The third point is one of which I take great note. He stated: I note your confidence that failure to receive briefings will not constitute a serious impairment to the work of the Authority. I do not share that view nor do I understand how it could sensibly be entertained; you will not be able, without briefing, to take on my investigations, if that is your intention. That sums up the whole matter and is the reason why Mr Costigan has expressed fears and doubts about the effectiveness of the National Crime Authority that is supposed to take over from him and do something about dealing with major crime in Australia. The Prime Minister and the Government are running scared. It is getting too close to the bone, too close to the top. In abandoning their responsibility, they are not doing the nation a service. Debate interrupted. Debate resumed from 6 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.43) —I wish to draw attention to the major part of the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. I refer, of course, to the implementation of the assets test on pensions. I will come to that later in my remarks but first of all I wish to address one particular matter relating to this legislation which in the main devotes itself to the implementation of specific Budget proposals that were outlined by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 21 August. The one issue on which the Opposition would like some explanation from the Government in the course of this debate-we will seek that during the second reading debate and, if that proves to be inadequate, also at the Committee stage -is in relation to the announced increase in the payment of unemployment benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Government has apparently decided that if a person in that category who currently receives unemployment benefit of $45 a week has been unemployed for a period of six months or more the rate will rise to $50 a week. As I understand it, very little justification has been given in the legislation for this proposal, although one can see that perhaps there is some argument for the fact that people who are out of work for long periods should be subsidised to a greater extent than those regarded as temporarily out of work. However, it enhances the difference that we have consistently exposed in the debate in the Senate and the other place in relation to youth unemployment. At present there exists a very strong bias in favour of encouraging people to stay out of the education stream and merely to accept unemployment benefit without seeking some education place or perhaps a tertiary education assistance scheme allowance. In fact, the incentives work against people seeking a place in education which obviously would be to the benefit of the people concerned and particularly to the long term benefit of the nation. We do not think that is a particularly good objective for this Government. But the point that really puzzles us is why there is to be an increase from $45 to $50 a week after a six-month unemployment period when one considers that a very considerable range of options is available to young unemployed people to seek training schemes. They could take part in the special youth employment training program, the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training scheme and other kinds of education and training schemes that are available in the community rather than merely accept unemployment benefit. The options are there and we are puzzled why the Government has chosen to implement a change such as this. I turn to the basic issue which is set out in Part III of this legislation. I refer, of course, to the implementation of the assets test on pensioners, and payments to supporting parents, to beneficiaries of the handicapped children's allowance and others. In the course of the debate we wish to draw attention to issues of considerable importance on this. I will seek to make some comments on the general principle in this area. First of all, we have seen a very extensive change in the Government's position on the assets test on pensions since it was first announced during the Budget debate in August of 1983. That followed a period of considerable alteration of opinion within the Government from when it was first claimed, ahead of the election in March 1983, that there would be no assets test on pensions. We were told that there would be no tax imposed on lump sum superannuation upon the election of a Labor Government. We were also told that there would not be a removal of pension entitlement from people over 70 years of age or a reimposition of an income test on that group. But, of course, upon the election of the Hawke Labor Government all those things came to pass. In the August Budget last year we saw the introduction of the assets test. Of course, at that time the Government obviously had not thought through its proposal and had not understood what it was about. It introduced a very loose set of arrangements which it was obvious would lead to all kinds of exploitation by those so motivated to take advantage of the schemes. The arrangements would not have achieved the ends which the Government claimed. Apart from that, it was obvious that the arrangements would lead to very considerable difficulty and hardship for some pensioners in particular categories. In the early part of that year many of those people endeavoured to take advice and to change their affairs according to the first set of rules. The Government did not introduce any legislation until around December 1983. When it finally arrived we saw that it included another proposal, the institution of the so-called leisure package to cover caravans, boats and holiday homes-to exempt those in the same way as houses were to be exempt. That proposal resulted from pressure put on the Government by the Labor Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, who saw the danger in his State, and by the right wing of the Australian Labour Party in Caucus here in Canberra. The Opposition at that time, together with the Australian Democrats, took the view that there was no point in rushing this legislation through the Parliament in the dying days before Christmas, as the Government then intended, but rather that debate should be held up until February. At that point the Government announced that it would not proceed with the legislation and would hold it over for further debate. That debate was subsequently superseded by the Government having a flash of brilliance on the road to Damascus when it changed its mind altogether about the proposal and set up the famous Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Incomes and Assets Test. This Panel comprised representatives of consumers in the welfare area, academics and people who were well qualified to discuss these issues, as well as others who had experience in the development of the assets test proposal. The panel brought down a report but its terms of reference limited it to discussing only the proposals which were put before it. It had no brief or basis for examining at close range the very fundamental propositions that existed in the assets test proposal. Naturally it came down in favour of an assets test of some kind, although a substantially watered down one . The panel's proposal was described as the tall poppies test when it hit the newspapers in May of 1984 and it was subsequently modified by the Government chiefly through the exclusion from the assets test of a pensioner's home. The proposal finally adopted by the Government is the basis for this legislation. What has happened over the past 12 months is that whereas the Government set out claiming that it would get increased revenue of some $300m that it could distribute to the needy as a result of the implementation of the assets test, we now find that the Government proposes that it will get in revenue of $45m as a result of this Bill. The Government may have some updated figures, and I look forward to receiving such information when it is available. First of all, we must put in perspective the gain of $45m because during the last financial year in the course of chasing moonbeams on the assets test proposals the Government spent some $24.7m in establishing the test. On top of this, in the current budget it has said that it will spend another $30m. This is just to get the scheme off the ground. This Government is so worried about the nature of the deficit and the effect of taxation on the people that it is prepared to spend $ 55m for a white elephant! That is occurring against the background of trying to save a mere $45m. The kernel of the debate on the Bill now before us is: What is this Government really on about with this legislation? There is only one conclusion that we can draw and that is that the Government is merely setting in place the machinery for an assets test which sounds innocuous as it stands and as it has been put in the course of this debate but which is obviously capable of being expanded into something else by the Government if it is re-elected after the election that it proposes in the latter part of this year. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is not the final assets test that this Government proposes. It wants to get through an election. It knows how hot this issue is in the electorate and it does not want to disturb the voters so much that they will oppose it. Then we will cop the real assets test, after the election. That has not been denied by this Government and it is obviously the only conclusion that can be drawn in the course of this debate. Senator Coates —What is the evidence for saying that? Senator MESSNER —None of the honourable senator's people has denied it. Let us have a look at the situation with regard to the general proposition that there is a problem relating to the aged in the community. The great scare technique of this Government is to claim that before us into the next century lies an insurmountable burden of pension and welfare payments that we will never be able to meet as there is a growing group of pensioners in the community. First of all, let us examine what has happened over the last 10 years. The number of aged pensioners from 1974 to 1983 increased by 35 per cent. The number of supporting parent beneficiaries over that same period grew by 433 per cent. The number of unemployment beneficiaries over that period grew by 1,883 per cent . In other words, the problem has not arisen as a result of payments to age pensioners but as a result of unemployment and the payment of supporting parents ' benefits and benefits to people in other categories as well. I point out that the number of age pensioners as a proportion of the whole has grown less than any other group. For that reason we have to consider how valid is the Government 's assertion that in the future we will have enormous problems in funding the so -called greying of Australia. One quick analysis of welfare expenditure generally shows us another way of looking at this problem. Welfare expenditure in the last financial year went up by something like $2,200m. Of that amount, some $1,700m was attributable to two things-increased unemployment benefit payments and increases due to indexation of pensions to allow for inflation. In other words, the fundamental problems relating to welfare expenditure reside with unemployment and inflation, the basic issues with which we have been concerned for 10 or so years. The increases that are attributable to benefits going to the aged or to other groups are of relatively small significance when compared with that enormous total. Therefore, we have to get our thinking right. The essence of the problem with welfare expenditure lies in getting the economy going and in designing industry policies which are capable of solving our problems. If we have a problem into the next century regarding the aged, let us try to identify when that might arise. Professor Gruen, who was responsible for the famous report on the assets test, told us that the increasing numbers of the aged would start to become a problem after the year 2011, some 27 years away. The second point is, he said, that the population of the aged will grow by a little under one per cent per annum. He also went on to say that he did not think that that would be any kind of significant burden on our community because he could easily see that the rate of productivity growth in the economy would be at least of that order over the next 20 or 30 years. He felt that we should be able to cope with that problem without too much trouble or even without higher taxation. These words came from the report of Professor Gruen which was handed to the Government after his panel examined the assets test proposals brought down by the Government. So the Government should have regard to its advisers on this matter. The report indicates that the problem regarding the aged is not so great as we have been led to believe. The justification for the Government bringing down this assets test lies in its wish to ration help for the age pensioner by sorting out those in the community who least need that kind of support by applying an assets tests. Yet that proposal ignores the very point that we already have in place in the community a very substantial needs test. We already apply an income test to pensions. A withdrawal rate of 50c in the dollar applies for income earned over and above the pension. We also subject pensions to taxation. The net effect of those two measures is that pensioners suffer some 65 per cent withdrawal of their benefit. It can be argued that the income test and taxation systems can be circumvented by smart operators who want to get around the system, but I notice that a similar circumvention has already started with respect to the assets test proposal. In this week's edition of Business Review Weekly an article headed ' Advisers face a boom' demonstrates that already many people are setting themselves up as authorities on how to get around the assets test to be brought in by this Government, thus creating a whole new industry of avoidance. What is the Government really trying to address with the assets test? Occasionally, the word 'equity' springs up. We are told that we have to have an equitable system of pensions which, I assume, will take care of everybody in equal proportion. Then we look at what that might mean. I quote from an editorial in the Canberra Times of 1 March this year, which read: As a general principle, the more progressive the tax system, the less compelling is the equity argument for making expenditures progressive, that is, for relating them to need. I believe that is a relevant consideration when we have regard to the fact that taxation impacts very heavily on pensioners and others in the community. As we know, the Government has just moved in its latest Budget to make the tax system even more progressive than it was under the scales introduced by the former Government. Indeed, the argument strongly runs in favour of that Canberra Times sentiment. Let us consider some other comments. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in 'Labor Essays 1983'-significantly, put out after the election in March 1983-on the subject of the assets test said: . . . To be consistent, those who argue for a pensions assets test should also argue for the personal income tax to be supplemented by a substantial test on personal assets-in other words, a wealth tax. That brings us back to this issue. The puny nature of this assets test signifies that the Government is putting down something which it knows is capable of development at a later date. It knows that it is the first step towards its goal of implementation of a wealth tax. Obviously the present Minister knows that because he has argued that those two things are strongly consistent. One of the recurring thoughts about the Government in this Parliament and in other places, is that it will introduce a wealth tax, a capital gains tax, in a way that will not be obvious before the forthcoming election. We are fortunate that the assets test legislation is before us so that we can see what the Government is on about before the election is held. In the last few minutes I have to speak, I want to run over again some of the difficulties the community has had in dealing with the various steps in the legislation now before us. First, in August 1983 there was said to be the prospect of quite a deal of consultation with pensioner groups, consumer groups and others in the community about the final form of the legislation. That, of course, did not take place before the proposals were first put into legislative form in December last year. That led to quite a reaction from welfare groups and to a summit sponsored by the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Council on the Aging. The meeting was held in January and February and the assets test was discussed in great detail. The report of that summit meeting obviously set out a very strong feeling of opposition to the assets test. It referred also to numerous anomalies and difficulties in the legislation as it saw it at that time. I point out also that had the Opposition not taken the stand it did, that Bill would have been law by the time ACOSS finally met in January and February, before it had an opportunity to express views on it. Had the Opposition not stood up and claimed that the legislation should be delayed at least until February, that would have occurred; yet the Opposition has been castigated by the Government for misleading the people about the anomalies and the errors in the legislation. In fact, we have been blamed for misleading people and giving them the wrong information when, of course, it has been the Government all along which either has not understood the proposals or has failed to explain its propositions clearly in public. I have demonstrated in the course of my remarks that in this period a remarkable lack of consistency has come from the Government on its various proposals. The way the Government has handled this issue has been an absolute farce. It has been moving from pillar to post, succumbing to various pressures at various times. Those pressures have obviously come from within its own political party organisation and are based more on where votes are coming from or going to than on any issues of principle. As a result, we have seen the mish mash and the horror stories of the last 12 months being mentioned time and again in the newspapers. It is not as though this legislation will hit the really wealthy in the community. Those in the moderate group who have sought to look after themselves will be most affected. One example of the kind of person it will affect is an 84 -year-old pensioner who rang me up in tears one Sunday morning. That pensioner, who is partially blind and inclined to lameness, found that she would be subject to an assets test. She had been widowed early in her life and had worked in her own way to provide an income and to build up assets so that she could look after her family. Eventually, she paid off her house; she looked after her children and saw them into adult life, only to see them both killed in a car accident. Later, when she was old enough, she retired from her job and received superannuation. She sold her house and found that she had investable assets of about $100,000. She bought herself a small elderly citizen's cottage or unit to live in and was left with investable funds of $90,000 to $100,000. Of course, she will lose her pension, or a large part of it, as a result of the assets test . It is not so much that she feels the loss of the money; it is the disregard, the coldness and the callousness this Government has for people in those circumstances. Such people over their working lives, against all kinds of trials and tribulations, build up assets and use them to look after themselves and to provide themselves with some kind of security, only to find that the Government will not even consider that they have made any positive contribution to the welfare of the nation. It is that kind of feeling that is running in the elderly community, and it is that kind of feeling for which this Government will have to pay the piper. It is that group which will be most affected by this legislation if it is passed. We, of course, will oppose this measure. We hope that the Australian Democrats will see the wisdom of our stand and will join us in opposing it so that we can defeat it on the floor of the Senate and force the Government to reconsider its position. That remains to be seen in the course of the next few hours' debate. This test represents a direct attack on individuals, a direct attack on people's attempts to build up assets in order to look after themselves in their retirement. The consequence of not doing so is to make people more dependent on the Government, not less. If we are to take a positive stand to reduce the cost to the Government of the elderly in the future, we should aim to try to direct our resources now so that people can build up assets and look forward to providing for themselves in the future. We have time to do that. Even Professor Gruen tells us that we have at least 27 years to do it. So we have time to change direction, to get our industry policies together so that we can direct ourselves in this way. But this Government takes the cheapskate way out, the way that does not involve challenge. It is cutting off the resources to those who are in need now to pay for the future of those further down the track. I make this final point: Those who are in retirement now have lived through vastly less advantageous times in terms of accumulating personal assets than those who will retire in the years ahead. Those who are in retirement now have lived through the past 50 years, through the period of the Great Depression and through the period of the Second World War. Those who will retire in future will have lived through times when superannuation is more common, more available and more generous. Already the number of people in occupational superannuation schemes has doubled in the last 10 or 12 years. That trend should be continued and we support it. If that is to be achieved we need positive steps. The Opposition stands for those positive steps and in government we will seek to put them into effect. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(5.12) —This Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 is to implement the assets test and also the changes to social security payments that were announced in the Budget Speech. Before I come to those matters, I would like to answer some of the points made by Senator Messner in his speech. There is a basic contradiction in the line that the Opposition has taken on the assets test. That is demonstrated in some of the words Senator Messner used only a few minutes ago. He said that the Opposition wants people to take action during their working lives to provide for themselves in retirement. That is a fair enough point to make. The Opposition then goes on to say that it wants to ignore that ability of people to provide for themselves once they have reached retirement, and it wants pensions to be paid in addition to the self-provided retirement benefits. That is a basic contradiction that the Opposition never seeks to explain. Honourable senators opposite just repeat over and over again that they want people to provide for themselves, but then not to provide for themselves. This does not add up. The other problem I have with the Opposition's argument is that is does not give the full story on the assets test. It does not acknowledge the hardship exemptions that are provided for in the test, it does not acknowledge the loan option and it continues to encourage the belief among pensioners that somehow or other most pensioners will be affected when, of course, all senators opposite know that only a small minority will be affected. Only a minority will even be asked to fill in a declaration form. The suggestion has been made by Opposition senators that they will abolish the assets test if they get back into office. We know, of course, that Mr Peacock was in favour of an assets test; we know that Mr Howard is still in favour; and we know that the other pretender to Mr Peacock 's throne, Mr Elliott, clearly favours an assets test. For Opposition senators to proclaim that they would abolish it is to mislead the Australian people. They know that if they ever did get back into government they would not be in a position to return to having an income-only test. I wish to make some brief remarks about the other provisions in this Bill, those relating to the Budget measures. It would have been wonderful if more reforms could have been made in this Budget in the welfare area, but it cannot be denied that despite the economic limitations restricting this Budget, which everyone acknowledges, major improvements have been made in the areas of greatest need which are this Government's highest priority. There are two areas of greatest need. The first is the pensioners and beneficiaries who are renting, and for those we have provided a 50 per cent increase in the rent allowance. This will provide extra help for those paying high rents in the private market. The second area is those pensioners and beneficiaries with children. Once again, we have increased the additional allowance in respect of children. There has been a 40 per cent increase in that allowance since this Government came into office. That applies to pensioners, beneficiaries and family income supplement recipients. There is also the further special increase on top of indexation in the single unemployment benefit rate, again continuing our policy to close the gap opened up by the previous Government between the single unemployment beneficiaries and those in receipt of other social security payments. The previous Government refused to index payments in respect of single unemployment beneficiaries. There will also be a special increase in the normally indexed pensions and benefits to overcome the lack of consumer price index increase due to the Medicare arrangements. This also makes some progress towards our commitment to reach 25 per cent of average weekly earnings in the first three years of this Government. We know that no compensation was paid by the previous Government when a similar sort of anomaly occurred in 1978-79. But this Government knew that it was an anomaly and has more than compensated for it. Senator Messner mentioned payments to 16 and 17-year-olds on unemployment benefit and the increase we are providing for those who have been on unemployment benefit for six months or more. He knows that the Government has instituted a review of all arrangements for young people-education payments, training payments, and unemployment payments. That review was not ready in time for this year's Budget but we hope it will be ready for next year's Budget. In the meantime, there is that interim payment, the increase for those in particular need who have been on unemployment benefit for six months or more. There has been an increase in the level of tertiary education assistance scheme payments for students. Again, it would have been nice to have made it more but there are the limitations of which everyone is aware. In other education areas there is the participation in equity program and the community employment program, as well as various labour market training programs which are all measures assisting in the youth unemployment area. The fundamental review of the whole question of payments to young people in all areas will be addressed next year. I return to the subject of the assets test. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is ill today and unable to speak in this debate. I know that he was most anxious to do so in view of his active role in initiating the income and assets tests on pensions and increasing public awareness of its actual provisions and the impact in the face of a scurrilous campaign of deceit and misinformation from the Opposition which represents the wealthy and privileged in our society. As Senator Gietzelt is absent, I will include in my remarks some aspects as to how the assets test will particularly affect repatriation beneficiaries. As we all know, the service pension is an important element of the Government's package of benefits for veterans. It is the primary benefit available to veterans in their retirement in recognition of the special commitment they made on behalf of their country and the hazardous and arduous nature of war service. The service pension is available five years earlier than the age pension is available to civilians. At present an income test is applied to pensions, including service pensions. The reason why there has always been some form of need test on the age pension since its inception in 1908 is the desire on the part of governments over the years to direct scarce taxation resources to the people in the community most in need in the most equitable way possible. Great problems arose in 1976 when the then Liberal Treasurer announced the move from the means test to an income only test. He said at the time that such an arrangement would be both simpler and more equitable for pensioners. Unfortunately, this has proved not to be the case because since the introduction of the income test there has been a rapid expansion of specially contrived schemes designed to get around the provisions of the income test. For certain individuals the income test has been rendered virtually optional. There is nothing equitable about this. It usually means that people with the greatest financial resources and skills are receiving pensions at the same level as people with no financial resources at all. So, as an efficient measure of financial need, the income test has been demonstrated to be a failure. The problems of the income test did not suddenly emerge when the present Government took office. The problems were well known to Ministers of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and have been the subject of numerous statements by them in Parliament. It is a matter of record that Senator Chaney, when Minister for Social Security, was quite disturbed about the income test abuses that proliferated at the time. In 1981 Senator Chaney said that he got frequent reports of pensioners with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars being involved in schemes which were not in their best interests and which were aimed at doing no more than increasing pension income, often to the economic detriment of those pensioners. That was said by Senator Chaney only three years ago. He never kept faith with the promises he made in this place to introduce changes. It is perhaps a good measure of the difficulty of making changes in this highly sensitive area that it needs courage to carry such changes through. If anybody needs reminding, I need only draw attention to the examples which Senator Gietzelt, as Minister for Veterans' Affairs, brought to the attention of the Senate last year of actual case histories of service pensioners who has the extensive financial resources at their disposal in an artificial and non-income producing form so that the service pension could be paid. Of course, Senator Chaney was well aware of this sort of abuse when he promised changes in 1981. The income test has highlighted the nature of the problem confronting the Government. The problem is that in measuring a person's financial need, it is neither realistic nor sensible to ignore the value of that person's property and investments. To do so is to invite the sorts of abuses that we now have. To most clear-sighted people, the solution is elementary. The needs test should take account of the total financial resources that a person has. This is precisely what the means test did for nearly 70 years until the previous Government abandoned it in 1976. This Government was faced with the serious problem that the income test did not do effectively what it was supposed to do. The net result of this has been widespread abuse of the system and escalating costs. We could not allow this abuse to continue unchecked. Action was needed and we acted. We announced a proposal in the Budget of August last year to replace the income test with a means test along similar lines to the previously existing one but with some important modifications and improvements. Unfortunately for the two and a half million income tested pensioners in Australia, the Opposition and much of the media in this country then found themselves unable to conduct a reasoned and informed debate about the proposals. Pensioners were subjected to some of the worst scaremongering, misinformation and hysterical outbursts ever. The predictable result was that the community was highly confused about what the proposals were and how individuals would be affected. In order to restore some reason and sanity to the debate on these questions and to restore the confidence of pensioners, the Government established a broadly- based advisory panel of people drawn from important areas of the community. We were able to gain the benefit of high quality advice from informed representatives, including people directly affected by the changes to the pension system. The value of this important contribution is reflected clearly in the changes that the Government is introducing. The Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, headed by Professor Gruen, reported to the Government in May this year and proposed what it called a 'tall poppies' test. The Government accepted the broad thrust of the Panel's proposals and, on 1 June, the details were announced. These followed closely the recommendation of the Panel. But the most important modification was that the pensioner's home be exempted from the assets test. Senator Chaney —That is a very big change. Senator COATES —Yes, it is a big change but it was acknowledged that the opposition to the test would be much heightened if the home were included as was proposed. So it was a compromise. The Government is willing to consult and to compromise. It has compromised after consultation. There are several important features that are worth mentioning. As the title ' tall poppies' implies, the assets test clearly and unambiguously leaves most pensioners unaffected. Only those with significant assets will be affected. These are people with assets in excess of very generous thresholds-namely, $100, 000 for a couple who own their own home; $150,000 for a couple who do not own their own home; $70,000 for a single pensioner who owns a home; and $120,000 for a single pensioner who does not own a home. So this simple, clear and somewhat generous approach to the problem of assets gives less opportunities for others to misrepresent and distort our proposals. The assets test will put a stop to the worst of the abuses that have grown up around the previous Government's income test. In response to Senator Messner's interjections that abuses will continue, of course the Government will have to be alert to possible abuses and ensure that they do not happen. It is not just a matter of letting the scheme continue without any monitoring. The range of schemes, many of a very dubious nature, which have been developed by sharp operators specifically for wealthy clients and which are not available to the ordinary pensioner represent the worst sorts of excesses which wealth and privilege breed. The assets test will ensure that those operators will not be successful any more. The assets test will help restore some sanity to the investment decisions of retired people. Because the income test ignores the value of capital gains and asset holdings, until now many retired people have been encouraged to invest their funds in areas that are usually non-income earning. Of course, this is an anachronism for people whose primary need in retirement is a regular income. It also serves to divert vast sums of community resources into artificial and non- productive schemes which slow and distort our economic development. The assets test will slow down somewhat the spiralling growth in pension costs. Given the present taxation base and methods of funding age, service and other pensions, it is imperative that the rate of growth of costs in this area be contained. If action is not taken, important recent improvements to pensions are likely to be put in jeopardy as costs in the future outstrip the community's ability to reach them. The Opposition makes a great fuss of the fact that in the first year there will be a high implementation cost compared to revenue. Of course, there is an extra cost in the first years, as there is in respect of most new schemes. But it has to be paid for in one form or another and it is worth setting up the system and begin its operation so that in future years the net revenue from the assets test is of value in redistributing wealth. The main point is that reintroducing the assets test will bring us back to a much more equitable system of pension payments than we have had in the last seven or eight years. We do not pretend that this proposal will provide all the answers. We do say that as long as there is a proper needs test on pensioners, that test should be as effective and as efficient as is possible, with abuse kept to a minimum. Some claim that there is a quick fix to solve all our problems in the retirement incomes area-to give means test free pension to everyone. But I do not believe that Australia can afford this sort of luxury, nor do I believe that the taxpayers who already carry a large burden would be prepared to foot the bill. It would mean that a universal pension would have to be smaller than the pension at present in order to spread it around. Some of the people who argue for this free pension believe that people should be able to have a pension in their retirement as a right because they have paid taxes all their working lives. Unfortunately, that is not so because the taxes that one pays today go to meet today's bills. In our taxation system there is no retirement benefit fund into which people pay taxes to provide for their future. People who wish to make provision for the future do so personally through superannuation schemes or other private arrangements. Of course, I would like to see superannuation schemes made available to more people who have missed out up until now. Other countries have retirement benefit schemes which are partly or wholly funded by taxpayers through their working lives but such a system has not operated and does not operate in Australia. If it did, taxes would be considerably higher than they are now, and would have been much higher in recent years. We have said that we are serious about looking at these wider questions in the retirement incomes area and this matter is being actively pursued at the moment. This should lead to an informed debate and reasoned decisions but I think it is asking for too much to expect overnight results in this highly complex area. If overnight results were possible, surely some of our predecessors would have been able to realise them before now, unless they attribute to us superior abilities which they do not possess. In conclusion, the assets test is not a complete panacea but it will bring some sense of rationality to our present pension system. As long as the present system of providing pensions in retirement continues, we believe we have a responsibility to make the system work properly and not to let it be abused. There are wider questions of important structural changes in the retirement income area and we are looking at those in an ongoing way. But as a matter of principle, we must have a more equitable system and I hope that the Senate will support this Bill. We should not have on the statute books legislation in the form of an income only test which is incapable of operating as it was intended. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.35) —The Senate is debating the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill. Of course, principal interest in the Bill focuses on the introduction of an assets test. It is important to remember that we did have an assets test for pensioners until 1976. That assets test was abolished by the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government is not reinstating an assets test into the social security system. That is not what the people of Australia were led to expect would happen. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) went to an election with a clear undertaking that he would not be taking money out of the pensioner's cheque, but one of the effects of this measure is that some pensioners will lose pension. Mr Hawke, when he was a candidate for Prime Minister and not Prime Minister, made this point: Recovery can only be achieved and sustained by a change to national economic policies which lift and sustain demand. There can be no lift in profits or lift in growth unless there is a lift in demand. And that cannot be done by taking money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioner's cheque. It may have been some sort of cruel joke on the part of Mr Hawke, because he says that now he has lifted demand, he can afford to take money out of the pensioner's pay cheque. In any event, it is quite clear that this is yet another breach of an undertaking by the Australian Labor Party Government; yet another broken promise. One is entitled to ask, given the limited nature of the savings which would be effected, just what the Government is up to. Why is it imposing this assets test ? We are told it is to limit the growth of social security expenditure and to focus assistance more on those in need. I will shortly go through the figures which clearly show that the amount being saved in terms of the totality of social security expenditure is very small, and that that amount is being purchased at a very great administrative cost and at the cost of considerable intrusion into the lives of pensioners. I put on the record early in this debate why the Government is doing this. It is doing it as a sop to the Business Council of Australia and to those who believe that reining in welfare expenditure is one of the key things that must be done. This is a token attempt by the Government to bite the welfare bullet, to show that it is a serious Government which will tackle a problem that has worried many people in the business sector. My contribution to this debate will go into the reality which underlines that claim, and I will deal also with some other aspects of this assets test. I think it is becoming widely known that the Government's proposal will be expensive. We have had Estimates committee consideration of these matters over the last week or so, and we find that in 1983-84-that is, last year-the Government expended $24.7m in its various departments in planning for this assets test-indeed, planning for the various assets tests that it has proposed, including one initially in the Budget last year and then another after the report of the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test earlier this year. So last year the Government spent $24.7m of taxpayers' money in preparing for the assets test. It saved absolutely nothing because, of course, the test was not in operation. This year it proposes to spend $29.9m and it hopes that by the end of the year it will have reduced pensions by $18m. One does not have to be a genius to know that means that on the figures given to an Estimates committee recently the Government will be more than $20m out of pocket this year-that means, of course, that taxpayers will be $20m out of pocket-and that last year nearly $25m was wasted in this exercise. All that is apparently made worth while because next year, the Government tells us, it will save $60m in a full year of administration of the assets test and it will cost only $9.7m to administer. The Government is saying: 'It is true that we have spent a lot of money so far. It is true that in these early years of trying to get our act together, getting it wrong, correcting it and coming in with a second proposal that we have spent a lot more than we have been able to save, but the fact is that next year we will save some $50m'. I think that one needs to perform some sort of assessment of just to what extent the Government is biting the welfare bullet to satisfy the Business Council of Australia and those other organisations, such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, which believe it is a wonderful thing to be doing. If I refer to the Budget Papers I find that this year the Government is spending a total of $18,047m on welfare. That covers social security, veterans' affairs and so on. The total social security and welfare bill this year is around $18,000m. There is no way that that will not go up by more than another billion dollars next year. I make that quite confident prediction, as an ex-Minister for Social Security, knowing how the indexation system works. This year it went up by $1, 608m, which makes my estimate of what it will go up by next year quite conservative. Next year we face a welfare bill of close to $20,000m and the Government will save $50m in net terms by the imposition of the assets test. I suspect that many people out there, particularly the aged people in Australia and their families, will be asking: 'Why is it that in this enormous welfare system it is necessary to introduce an intrusive and often unfair assets test to make such a miniscule change to total spending?' A number of Liberal speakers, not least Andrew Peacock, have consistently pointed out how little the Government will save. They have pointed out that if the savings are spread over pensioners they might be able to buy half a Kit-Kat each, or something derisory of that sort. The reality is that the Government will put a great number of people to very considerable inconvenience. It will affect some people quite severely. The Government is doing things which will make little or no real difference to the very real problem-the problem that I acknowledge-of the total cost of social security and welfare in Australia. Senator Coates —Is that what you would do? Senator CHANEY —Senator Coates interjects. I will deal with what I would do later in my speech. Before doing so I respond to his interjection by saying that when I was the Minister for Social Security I did not propose to do what the Government is doing here-because of the cost of doing so, because of the limited effect and because of the consistent advice of my Department. Some of the officers who gave me that advice are probably sitting opposite, although I have a more vivid memory of other officers giving that advice. Their advice was, no, that was not a proposition I should put forward. I accepted that advice. I think that one of the most serious questions that has to be asked about this Government, given its introduction of this assets test, is just what are this Government's priorities. I suggest to honourable senators that any examination of the figures on this test will show that the aged are certainly not this Government's priority. This Government has just introduced its second Budget. The two Budgets which have been brought down by Mr Hawke have averaged an increase in expenditure of over 14 per cent. This year the increase in expenditure is over 13 per cent. The figure is slightly less than it was last year. Overall this Government, which has had a once off great surge of revenue- the greatest lift of revenue which one can imagine, an extra $9 billion to disburse-has utilised most of that surge in revenues to increase government expenditure by more than 13 per cent. When we look at the Government's own figures on what is being done for the aged we find that assistance to the aged is increasing by 8.8 per cent. I think that any Liberal would have to concede-we are always being lectured on this subject by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), who is at the table-that if we intend to argue about smaller deficits, less taxation and all the rest, we have to look to our expenditure. I acknowledge the validity of that point. This Government's approach to expenditure has been to increase expenditure by 14 per cent. In the two Budgets which the Government has brought down it has increased expenditure by a total of just under 30 per cent in all, but this year it is increasing expenditure by 13 per cent and expenditure on the aged is going up by 8.8 per cent. I suggest that shows that the aged do not loom very large in the priorities of this Government. I also find that the Government is very ready to spend amounts of money on administration which are considerably in excess of the sort of money which is involved here. In this one year alone the Government is spending an extra $724m on government administration; that is, on employing public servants, on the bureaucracy. That represents an increase of 16.7 per cent. That tells us something about the Hawke Labor Government and where its interests lie. It is prepared to spend 16.7 per cent more, an extra $724m, on the machinery of government, whereas it increases expenditure on the aged by 8.8 per cent. I think that we have here a government which is shown up yet again to be a sham. It is a government which I believe has simply decided to take the calculated risk that it will lop a few aged tall poppies, and no doubt enthuse some of the left wing members. It can afford to lop a few aged tall poppies-that is the Government's expression, not mine-and at the same time throw money around in a quite profligate way on its own little exercises. We all know that there is an enormous increase in health expenditure this year because of the costly imposition of Medicare. We know that the Government is utterly careless of the additional costs it is imposing on the Australian people , but by gosh, this Government is prepared to spend nearly $30m this year to collect $18m from pensioners. I think that tells us a lot about the Hawke Government. It also tells us something about the effectiveness, or rather the ineffectiveness, of the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, as a guardian of the interests of Australia's aged. It tells us something about the total illogicalness with which this Government sets about its business. We have the very strange circumstance in which this Government has been utterly loose with respect to certain items of expenditure. It is quite happy to commit itself , for example, to $30m for the defence of the America's Cup. That is a matter about which we might all be terribly proud as Australians but the Government is prepared to spend as much again just to collect $18m from pensioners. I just say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that I think that is a pretty funny way of tackling the welfare problem. I believe it is a pretty funny way to treat Australia's aged. Let us have a quick look at the history of this proposal. It has been handled in a most unprofessional and careless way. After the Liberal Party, under the Prime Ministership of Mr Malcolm Fraser, removed the assets test because of the unfairness which it imposed on some people, such as retired farmers who might have substantial assets but no income on which to live- Senator Walsh —You caved in to the Country Party, as you always do. Senator CHANEY —The mention of farmers has woken up Senator Walsh and he immediately starts becoming abusive. The fact of the matter is that the removal of the assets test was recommended by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. After that was done, Mr Hawke made the election promise to which I have referred and which he has subsequently broken. The Government then announced last year that it would introduce an assets test, which was rather akin to the assets test that was removed in 1976. It is very interesting to find that when there was some complaint about that, and when the Opposition said that we thought the Government's proposal was defective, we were subjected to a great deal of abuse from the other side of the chamber. We were very severely criticised, both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. We as an Opposition said that we thought there were elements of unfairness and indicated that we were prepared to hold up the legislation the Government had proposed to introduce last year to give the aged of Australia and other interested parties a chance to put their views to the Government. Once that opportunity was provided and the Government put the legislation aside during the last Budget session, it became very obvious that there were defects. Let me say that that is not a partisan comment; that is an admission that was made very clearly by Mr Hawke, Mr Hawke, having complained at our attitude, in addressing the National Press Club in February this year said: . . . it is clear that there is a considerable degree of misunderstanding . . . and also, let me say, that there is some justifiable concern within what we have suggested, there are some intrinsic anomalies. On the Mike Walsh Show a little later he said: there was confusion about the extent of who might be adversely affected and there were some anomalies. So I just decided then that what needed to be done, is that we ought to get a committee in the community to look at what we were talking about-- So the Government admitted that what it was putting forward was wrong. It admitted much of the criticism of the Opposition and it gave itself an opportunity for a second thought through the Gruen committee. The Gruen committee reported, but the Government did not accept the Gruen committee recommendations. I suppose that if one were looking at this from the point of view of fairness and from the point of view of meeting the problems about which Senator Coates was so eloquent-I really think 'eloquent' is perhaps an overgenerous expression; the problems Senator Coates described in his speech-if one really wanted to tackle those things, I suspect Senator Coates would agree that the Gruen recommendations would have gone further down the track towards meeting those difficulties. Senator Coates —You agree, do you? Senator CHANEY —I am saying that if that is his primary objective, if he is prepared to legislate for the purpose he outlined in his speech-that we should be concerned merely to put to bed these difficulties-then it is more defensible to adopt the Gruen recommendation. What the Government has done, of course, is to ease the political pain of the recommendations by putting in the exception of the pensioner's home. It has done so for political purposes, but by that means it has left the test open to endless manipulation, if people wish to manipulate it. So the Government has wound up with something which is not of Professor Gruen's making. It is important to note that what the Government is putting forward is not of Professor Gruen's making; it is of the Government's making, of Mr Hawke's making. Any inconvenience which is felt by the aged population of Australia, any unfairness, any intrusion, is something which is being inflicted on them by the Government and not by Professor Gruen. We have consistently expressed our concern about various elements of what the Government is proposing. We have said that what the Government is proposing will be intrusive; in other words, it is something that will affect pensioners. Senator Coates —It is not as obtrusive as you say. Senator CHANEY —Senator Coates says: 'It is not as obtrusive as you say'. I can say only that the Government must make up its mind whether it is fair dinkum about this assets test. On the one hand, the Government says it is imposing an assets test; and at the same time, if there is any suggestion that any pensioner will be inconvenienced, it runs away from it. It suggests: 'You will not have to worry about the fact that the contents of your home are meant to be part of the measured assets. You don't have to worry about that because, after all, $10,000 will be set as the value of your assets unless your assets happen to be more than that, in which case you are supposed to come and tell us about it'. In response both to the sorts of interjections that have been made tonight and to the sorts of statements that have been made by the Government, I say only that it ought to make up its mind. Is it imposing this assets test or is it not? I understand the legislation before us now and which we are opposing to say that an assets test will be imposed and that pensioners will be subject to it. I understand that this Government will be employing several hundred public servants to make sure that it is applied. If that is not so, I suggest the Government should withdraw this legislation. We have also said that we think that in many respects the assets test will be ineffective. It is ineffective because on the form of test that has been designed by the Government, it will still be possible to put assets into an exempt form. That might be highly inconvenient, but the history of the last few years suggests to us that if we provide for methods of escaping a test, at least a proportion of the community will be prepared to go to a great deal of trouble and even expense to ensure that they go down the tracks which are demonstrated. Because there are exemptions, routes will be designed by people who will make it their business to do so. The Government has added complexities to an already complex system instead of removing them. Of course, in addition we say that there are elements of unfairness in what is proposed. I do not intend to go into great detail on that, but the simplest illustration is that a pensioner living in a house worth a million dollars and with $100,000 in the bank will be treated in exactly the same way as a pensioner living in a house worth $40,000 with the same amount in the bank. That is just one simple illustration of how what is meant to be a fair test will apply in a quite discriminate way across different circumstances. Senator Coates —What would you do? Senator CHANEY —It is no good the few Labor Party senators who have bothered to come into the chamber for this debate interjecting: 'What would you do?' The fact is that we have shown by our actions in government that this is not what we would do. We would not adopt the course the Government is adopting. Apart from saying that the Opposition is opposed to what we see as being an intrusive, ineffective and unfair imposition on the aged, I want to say something about my own role in this matter. There has been a tendency to refer to me in debate, and it is a tendency that has been followed by Senator Coates in the debate tonight. I believe that there are genuine difficulties for Australia in the size of the bill which is presented to taxpayers in each year and the rate at which that bill is increasing. There are significant reasons why we need to maintain some needs-based application of welfare in this country. As I have said before in debates, if we look at the record of the Fraser Government we find that one of the first things it did in regard to welfare was to index the pension. That happens to be the proposal which I think was branded by Professor Henderson in the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty as the most significant needs-based measure to be taken. It is a long time since I have looked at that report, but the indexation of pensions was the fundamental safeguard provided for those who are most in need-those who are reliant on the basic pension. That very expensive reform of the Fraser Government was a reform undertaken in 1976 and maintained; it was a reform which cost a great deal on an annual basis, and something which we retained. The last of the welfare initiatives of the Fraser Government was the introduction of a family income supplement for low income working families. I suggest that at the first act and at the last act there were the clearest possible indications that the Fraser Government was concerned to provide greater assistance to those in need. I am sure that every Minister for Social Security, in common with me, has examined the ways in which the Department of Social Security expends money and the measures which can be taken to make the expenditure of those moneys more effective. That was a chore I undertook as Minister and I know that it was undertaken by my predecessor, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. The conclusion I came to in the period in which I was Minister for Social Security was that the costs and inefficiencies of a return to the assets test were not warranted by the advantages which could be gained. Originally, the Government said to the people of Australia in the Budget before last: 'We will save hundreds of millions of dollars by the imposition of an assets test'. I suppose one might argue that if one is to make savings of hundreds of millions of dollars and redistribute them to the needy in Australia, one might have had a strong moral basis for the argument being put forward. I believe that to come before this Parliament and to say that to impose this assets test-which will have such a negligible effect on outlays-is other than an unnecessary burden on the aged of Australia, is simply false. I believe that the Government has not established a case for the legislation which is before us this evening. My conclusion was that the measure was one which should not be undertaken. I believe that is the conclusion which we, as an Opposition, have properly come to in deciding to oppose this legislation. I believe the legislation should not come into operation. It is intrusive. In terms of the great problems which face Australia it is totally ineffective, and I believe that to the aged, to whom it will apply, it is unfair. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(6.01) —We are currently debating the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. In some of the speeches this afternoon, although not all, we have heard some very emotional stuff about people who rip off the system on the one hand and, on the other, of blind, little old ladies who are done out of their widow's mite. I think one or two things have to be said about those two allegations. First of all, there are always going to be some people who can work the system, as there are with any legislation. Generally they are the ones who are best off. That is grossly unfortunate because they are the people who can afford the lawyers, the accountants and so on who can work around the system. I do not think we will ever be able to find a piece of legislation that is not loophole-free. However, we have to make sure that we come up with legislation, in this matter or in taxing matters or any other area, which leaves as few loopholes as possible, has as few anomalies as possible and which can be worked, so to speak, by as few people as possible. That sort of scheme should therefore be relatively simple and as easy to understand and administer as possible. I may well have misunderstood Senator Messner regarding the second point that was raised. If I did, I apologise in advance. But in an imperfect world we are always going to have people who are disadvantaged under one scheme but who are not under another. I suggest that the example he gave us of the lady who rang him up one Sunday morning in tears was not a terribly good one since he started by saying that she was blind- Senator Messner —I am sorry, she was going blind. I made a slip of the tongue. Senator HAINES —Senator Messner has corrected what he said earlier. I thought he said that the lady was blind. Nevertheless, this gives me an opportunity to point out that in fact blind pensions are not going to be affected under this legislation; nor will unemployment, sickness and special benefits, war and Defence widow's pensions and repatriation disability pensions, which are paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Apart from the people who are already on age pensions, those on invalid, wives' and widow's pensions and so on-there is a list available from the Department of Social Security-will be affected. There is one group of people who were not only not helped by the previous system but who will not be helped by this one either; that is, those people on small superannuation payments, some of which may be indexed and some of which are barely indexed and who have never had the opportunity to take out the large lump sums that other people were entitled to. These people have always been left out on a limb. In many cases they did not receive any more than the basic pension under the system that existed up until now, yet they were never able to benefit from the fringe benefits that people who were on the same amount of money, but were getting it from the Department of Social Security, were able to benefit from. There seems to be a lost puddle of people somewhere in the middle that nobody is going to be able to help until we come up with a universal pension- that is, presumable until we get a national contributory portable superannuation scheme or we have a universal non-means tested pension. Of course everybody would like that. Nobody likes a means tested pension, but until we reach the stage where we can get that on the statute books we are going to have to look for the best scheme that is available. Both Sir William McMahon and Mr Whitlam promised within the last 10 or 15 years to abolish the means test, and neither did. Neither major party in the last generation has found that it has been able to abolish means tests entirely, no matter what it has promised at the elections. Indeed, Parliament has debated this issue almost since Federation, with the 1939 legislation being the closest we ever got to achieving a result, and I think we lost that by a mere whisker. What we must bear in mind during this debate is that the Bill before us does two things: It is not simply a Bill which introduces an assets test; it increases pensions and benefits and other related matters as well as imposes an assets test which replaces the current unsatisfactory income only scheme. Whatever procedural niceties the coalition Opposition comes up with, it seems to me it is really bargaining one part off against the other. There is no way I believe that anybody can reasonably argue that opposing the clauses in this legislation that pertain to an assets test, and running the very real risk that the Government will not go along with the first part of this and increase pensions and benefits, is a good move. This is particularly so when the legislation is not nearly as bad as some people are making out. It is not going to throw people out on the streets. It is not going to deprive those people who are in need of a pension. The Government's hardship provisions, if nothing else, make that perfectly clear. As I said, it is furthermore a distinct improvement on the existing system where only an income test prevails. This system, which Senator Chaney has tried to come to grips with, has over the years increasingly thrown up a number of anomalies. An example is the classic case of double dipping. I have already referred to superannuitants who were not given the opportunity to take out lump sum superannuation. Imagine how chagrined they have been over the last few years to watch colleagues in other fields, who have been able to take their money out as a lump sum, stash it away somewhere in a non-interest bearing account, offload it on to their children in some way or another, dispose of the income on assets and then go on the pension and full fringe benefits. I know a number of people that that has irked considerably. This legislation is also a vast improvement on the hotchpotch system that was proposed by the Government last year. There are none of the massive anomalies in this Bill that were in the previous versions that were thrown before the Australian public. For example, this Bill does not reward one lifestyle or preference for leisure over another; nor does it have included in it that extraordinary notional 10 per cent income arrangement that was the bane of a lot of elderly people who were, for example, holding shares, often in blue chip companies that were yielding, if they were lucky, three per cent. Last year, and until the time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his rather extraordinary announcement at the National Press Club earlier this year, the deluge of letters that I received from people pointing out just how they were going to be disadvantaged vis-a-vis somebody else, has dropped back to a trickle since Professor Gruen's report of the Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Tests and since the Government indicated just what elements of that report it was going to pick up and what elements it was not. There have certainly been very few complaints made to my office by way of phone calls or letters about the unfairness of the scheme that the Government has put before us today. I believe this is partly due to the fact that when Professor Gruen's committee's proposals were brought down, I made it quite clear that as far as the Australian Democrats were concerned there were three elements that had to be taken into consideration by the Government, only two of which the Government chose to look at in the short term. One of those was the exemption of the principal place of residence. The other was the need for indexation of the thresholds since it seemed absurd to us to allow people in two, three or 10 years time still to be bound by 1984 values. The third was an extension of fringe benefits, a large number of which are still in the hands of the Federal Government, to people on any sort of pension. The Government picked up the first two of those and I understand from some rumour I heard-the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who is in the chamber, may correct me if I am wrong-that the Government is at least looking at what can be done about fringe benefits. Senator Messner mentioned the fact, and I think with some good reason, that there is an increasing number of elderly people in the community. However, I do not believe that this should be used-in fairness to him I do not think he said it should, although some people are using it as such-as an argument to justify keeping pensions down or necessarily of imposing some sort of test. I would have thought that the reason any sort of means test was being imposed, given that economic and other conditions are not right for a non-means tested universal pension, was not that the number of elderly people in the community was becoming too large for us to handle but simply that, given the size of the cake, those in most need should receive it first. Need must be a top priority if we cannot go the full direction of either introducing a national portable contributory superannuation scheme or coming to terms with a universal pension. Certainly this is the policy of the Australian Democrats and is clearly set out in our policy papers. If there is a choice between a small pension which is not means tested but is universal or a larger one based on need that gets to those people who need it and not to those who do not need it but which requires some form of means testing, the latter is preferable to the former. I certainly support Senator Messner's belief that we should all work at improving economic and industry conditions sufficiently over the next few years in order to be able to do away with a means test. His estimate, the source of which I have forgotten-- Senator Messner —Gruen. Senator HAINES —His estimate from Professor Gruen was that it was likely to take 27 years. Until that happy day turns up, I suggest that we have to address ourselves to the question of what we do with people who retire between now and then. The answer has to be that we make sure that those who do not need a pension do not get one and that those who are in most need do get one. As Senator Chaney is fond of saying, the fact is that there are defects in the present system. Those defects have to be confronted and something has to be done about them. I am not silly enough to suggest that this Bill is perfect but I believe, as I have already indicated, that it is an improvement on the previous system under which people were able to dispose of their income and the money they had in a way that would still allow them to receive a pension regardless of whether they really needed it. Of course, this Bill is certainly not better than introducing a national portable contributory superannuation scheme but, like half of the rest of the people in this country, I have given up hope of this Government or any other government ever directing its attention completely to that. However, the Bill does increase pensions and benefits. If the cost of that is the introduction of an assets test that ends double dipping and prevents the asset rich from receiving a pension they do not need as much as other people need it, so be it. The Opposition has to make up its mind about what it wants; I believe that it has. That is its position. It does not necessarily mean that it is the right decision or that we have to agree with it. It is simply not possible to have it both ways. For that reason, the Australian Democrats will not support the coalition in its opposition to this Bill. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.14) —Today we are addressing the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984 which is almost in the nature of an omnibus Bill or a bracketing together of Bills. It addresses special provisions in the Budget for pensioners, increases in pensions and benefits, initiatives for unemployed people, assistance for private rentals, assistance for pensioners, beneficiaries and low income families with children, changes in the Repatriation Act to increase pensions and allowances for repatriation service pensioners and the commonly mentioned assets tests. All of these measures are very much in support of this Government's Budget commitment to maintain the contribution for those people in our community most in need; that is, those people we call poor. Of course, the poor people in this community include very large numbers of pensioners. In the Budget Papers it was announced quite clearly that the social welfare package will cost $430m in 1984-85 and $ 683m in a full year over and above the normal indexation arrangements. The Government was faced with the real and continuing challenge of reducing the deficit it inherited when it came to government and at the same time trying to address some of the initiatives on which this Government went to the people and was elected. How does one reduce the deficit and still maintain gains for the community? In fact in this Budget how was one to maintain the gains that were put under way in last year's Budget, with other economic and fiscal measures taken by the Government at other than the Budget time? I think that the Government has achieved a very balanced Budget and a considerable contribution in the areas mentioned in this Bill. The deficit estimate for this year is $6.7 billion-a huge reduction on the deficit last year. While the Government has reduced the deficit, it has also reduced inflation by nearly half-from 11.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent-and it has brought down interest rates and seen the creation of 270,000 jobs; in fact by now probably a higher number of jobs than that. Other steps taken by the Government are more specifically addressed by the many parts of this Bill. First, there will be a special increase in the basic rate of all indexed pensions and benefits for single people and married couples. The increase will be $2.50 for single pensioners and $4.20 for married pensioners; that is, the pension will now be up to 23.8 per cent of average weekly earnings. That is certainly not as far as the Government's stated aim of 25 per cent of average weekly earnings but it is an improvement on last year and it is part of the Government's promise to move to 25 per cent. It acknowledges that it has not been able to do that at one stroke. The other thing that we must remember at this time is that in 1982 pensions had fallen to 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. When the Labor Government went out of office in 1975 pensions were 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings. We saw an erosion of the pension as a percentage of average weekly earnings over the seven years of the Fraser Government, down to 22 per cent in 1982. This Government has to reclaim those losses but it cannot do it all at one time. It acknowledges that the 23.8 per cent that pensions now are of average weekly earnings is short of its stated aim of 25 per cent, but it is an improvement and it is part of the Government's promise to move to 25 per cent. It admits that it cannot do that in one year. Another area of importance was alluded to by Professor Gruen and is well acknowledged; that is, the particular difficulties for people on pensions who live in private rented accommodation. I will just draw the Senate's attention to the assistance provided for renters. It is well spelt out by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in his second reading speech. It states: Rent assistance is available for pensioners, supporting parent beneficiaries and long term sickness beneficiaries (that is, those of 6 or more weeks standing ) who have little or no income apart from the pension or benefit and pay private rent or lodging. The maximum rate of payment was up to $10 a week prior to this Budget. But in recognition of the particular difficulties faced by people forced into the private rental market, the Government has increased rental assistance by 50 per cent to $15 a week, and this measure will be introduced from November 1984. I will not tabulate all the specific gains under this Bill, but I think it is important to allude to the rental assistance for those people on pensions who rent in the private rental market. One hopes that the increase in rental assistance will not be matched by an increase in rent charged. This is a problem that governments have faced in addressing this issue but hopefully the increased assistance to pensioners for private rental assistance will be of benefit because it will not be matched by an increase in the amount of rent. I turn now to the assets test. It is important to note that there has been very wide support in the community for its introduction. Senator Chaney alluded to the Government being prepared to introduce an assets test so as to keep business happy. I think that is a fairly sour way of acknowledging the support from the business community for the assets test. The West Australian of 9 June 1984 stated: The Confederation of Australian Industry said yesterday it supported the Government tackling the problem of means-testing welfare. The article goes on to say: Earlier this week the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, revealed that the chief executive of Elders-IXL, Mr John Elliott-who is also Victorian treasurer of the Liberal Party-had congratulated the Government on introducing an assets test. The CAI, the article states, had gone on to say: There was no realistic option apart from means testing to ensure that welfare spending was provided to those in genuine need. The CAI gives support in principle to the Government for tackling this unavoidable and increasingly urgent issue. The article does not explain at great length that the CAI and Mr Elliott were pleased that the assets test was introduced because it would be a boon for business, and I do not believe that that would be the only or a limited way they would understand it. The situation has been more clearly spelled out for us in an article in the Australian, again on 9 June, by Alexander Downer, who has since won pre-selection in South Australia for a Federal seat likely to be won by a Liberal. It is very nice to have a prospective incoming Liberal saying the following: The Government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test. * * * * The Government has had the courage to address that issue. * * * * The consequences of this have been the redistribution of economic resources away from the areas such as investment, profit and wages, which are the catalyst for economic growth to a public sector which consumes the prosperity created by others. He argues very nicely about the increase in the number of people who are aged and who will be in the aged category by the year 2000. He also refers to the increased expenditure required by welfare to provide income support for people in that category. He also points to the fact that if revenue is distributed away from support for business and productivity in the community simply to security payments, there will be a loss for the whole community. One does not argue with that. One is pleased to find a member of the Liberal Party and perhaps a prospective Liberal member of the Parliament very much acknowledging that and acknowledging too the courage of the Government in taking steps to introduce its own assets test. Of course, it is necessary to have encouragement for business. This Government' s Budget is unashamedly good evidence of that. Not only have we put some $430m this year into social welfare payments over and above what was expected but also there has been considerable encouragement for industry precisely because the encouragement and improvement for investment and industry in this country are part of the reason we have seen some 270,000 jobs created. The very best way to reduce welfare payments is to have people at work, not only not drawing unemployment benefits but also contributing to general revenue through the taxes they pay. I am surprised that Senator Chaney, who ought to know better, is trying to lead to the public of Australia today such a simplistic and puerile analysis. The rest of us, including Mr Downer, have a subtler approach to it all. I was also interested in the reason for which Senator Chaney reckons that the Government has introduced the assets test. He argued that it is an administrative nightmare , that it would not return terribly much money and then he proceeded to argue very nicely that it would in fact recoup $50m for the Government in the next financial year. He proceeded to say that this is a drop in the welfare bucket. I presume Senator Chaney is not asking the people of Australia to abandon $50m that can be redistributed to those more in need, particularly if we are taking it from those who have less need. But the Government has made it quite clear and Senator Grimes in this place, particularly in his second reading speech, made it quite clear that the assets test was introduced for another reason besides fairness, equity and possible redistribution qualities. He said: It is time for us all to recognise that the real issue is not whether we should have an assets test, but what is the fairest and best form of assets test. I entirely concur with that. It has been so well argued by the Government before . There really is not any dispute about whether we should have an assets test, and I am surprised that the Opposition should argue it at all. The question is: What sort of assets test? So the Opposition is actually arguing about whether there should be a limit of $100,000 or whether a pensioner's house should be included. More importantly, though, the Opposition does not address the other important reasons for introducing an assets test. That again was spelled out very well by Senator Grimes, who said: Inevitably, the absence of an assets test provided greater opportunities for the circumvention of the income test. Avoidance schemes are now widely available and readily accessible. If no steps are taken to discourage the proliferation of these schemes basic inequities are increased, resources are mis-directed and public confidence in the pension system is undermined. A point which needs to be recalled and people need to be reminded of very often- the Opposition certainly does although I think it is beyond its comprehension-is that the people in the community know very well that one of the other reasons we need an assets test is to prevent the rorting of the system that has been happening since the previous Government took away the assets test in 1976. This point was made very well by Minister Blewett in the House of Representatives when he said that the equity part is not the only object of the assets test, perhaps not even the prime object. He said that what is most important, as everyone knows, including even the honourable member for Mackellar, is that the assets test has been introduced to prevent the widespread abuse and avoidance that was happening since the previous assets test had been lifted. That abuse is one of the fundamental flaws in the system without an assets test. The Minister continues: As a result, many pensioners who have the resources to provide for their own retirement end up getting a pension subsidy. Therefore, savings are not the main issue. They are an important issue, but they are not the main one. We have had a rorting of the system, inequitable gains to people who did not need them and a loss of assistance to those who are most in need. Members of the Government have addressed this issue fairly honourably and some of the Opposition members, to give them their due, have been reasonable about it. Some in particular-I refer to the splendid man from Tasmania-have been positively disgraceful and any of the scaremongering and fearmongering tactics of the Opposition should be laid to rest. Again and again Minister Grimes has said that claims about gold fillings being assessed or people knocking on doors-storm troopers as has been said-invading pensioners' homes are quite wrong-very misleading and do create fear and anxiety in elderly people, every one of whom has absolutely no need to be fearful of the assets test. Certainly no one need fear storm troopers or that gold fillings will be assessed. Such arguments are quite revolting and no honourable members or honourable senators ought reduce themselves to that level of debate. The facts are what people need. We should not have dishonourable lies and scaremongering. We have seen examples reported in the papers recently of very anxious pensioners who have withdrawn their assets, and in one case a pensioner had the horrible experience of those assets being stolen. Again, I think that that is a direct consequence of the scaremongering of some of the Opposition members. I think it is a disgrace. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator CROWLEY —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I table a letter dated 10 September 1984 which I have received from the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC, concerning resolutions passed by the Senate on 6 September 1984. With respect to Mr Temby's comment in the first paragraph of this letter, I am advised by the Clerk that copies of the resolutions were forwarded by hand to Mr Temby's office on Friday, 7 September. With the concurrence of the Senate, the letter will be incorporated in Hansard. The letter read as follows- 10 September 1984 Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland, President of the Senate, Parliament House, CANBERRA. My dear Mr. President, I refer to the resolutions passed by the Senate on 6 September. No formal notification has been received in relation to them, but I am aware of the terms of the resolutions by perusal of Hansard. I see some difficulty in the proper performance of my role by reason of the terms of the resolutions. It seems appropriate to give early advice to the Senate, through you, as to my perception of the situation. Let me say at the outset that an important role of the Office of D.P.P. is to assess materials containing allegations of Federal criminality and decide what steps, if any, should be taken in relation to them. That will be done whatever the source of the materials might be. And if one of the great Houses of Parliament resorts to my Office for an opinion as to Federal criminality on the basis of materials containing such an allegation, there will be a response which is as prompt as the circumstances permit. It is always possible that further investigation might be necessary in order to reach a concluded view, and in such a situation the matter would ordinarily be sent to the Australian Federal Police for the purpose. My Office does not have, and does not seek, an investigative capacity. It is one thing to decide upon a course of action on the basis of known materials which are the best available or likely to become available: that may be described as the fixed position. It is quite another thing to decide whether the laying of charges is justified if additional materials which may be of relevance to the question are in the course of being obtained. That would mean that any opinion given might become invalidated quite quickly, and it seems quite inappropriate to undertake the exercise in such circumstances of change. Accordingly, if and when I am formally requested to give an opinion in relation to the first motion passed (Senate Hansard for 6 September, pages 528, 578 and 584) I will respectfully decline to do so until the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge has taken such evidence into the allegations as might touch upon the question of criminality. It would then be for the Senate to decide whether further materials should be sent to my office. If the Select Committee decided not to take evidence until I had provided it with a report, I would be prepared to assist in that way. However I must say that my clear preference is for there to be no report made until the best available material touching upon questions of possible Federal misconduct have been gathered and made available. The Attorney-General enquired of my Senior Deputy some two weeks ago whether an opinion could be provided if materials were referred to my Office by the Senate, and he was told that would be done, and promptly. A period of 10 days after receipt of materials was mentioned, in the knowledge that the matter is one that should receive priority, and assuming that further investigations would not be necessary. The soundness of that assumption could not be known until the materials were received. Now it is known that the Senate has set up a Select Committee to take evidence, it seems to me to be a pointless exercise, and put my Office in a most invidious position, if we are required to undertake an exercise in parallel to that which is to be performed by the Select Committee. In particular any conclusion reached would of necessity be tentative and might have to be changed on the basis of materials subsequently referred. I hope that Honourable Senators generally will understand that it is my desire to assist, but I respectfully suggest assistance cannot be best given in the manner contemplated by the two resolutions when read together. Your faithfully, IAN P. TEMBY Reference to Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.01) —by leave-I move: That the correspondence received from the Director of Prosecutions, Mr Temby Q. C., dated 10 September 1984, be referred to the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. In so moving, I say just this: The letter of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Senate today confirms what really has been the Government's position from the outset; namely, that the notion of both the Senate Committee and Mr Temby engaging in simultaneous inquiries is unworkable, to say the least, and nonsense , to say a lot more, but I do not think it is appropriate yet again to get into that debate. What is clear is that while rejecting the notion or the possibility of parallel inquiries being conducted, the DPP does leave open two options for what might be described as sequential inquiries. The first option is that the Senate Committee not take evidence until after the DPP has reported. The second option is that Mr Temby not consider the case for prosecution until after the Senate Committee's inquiry is complete. Mr Temby's clearly expressed preference, perfectly understandable given that he is a professional criminal prosecutor, is for the second of those two options, but he does, of course, indicate a preparedness to follow the former course if he is so requested. What is involved in the present case is not, as we have argued on numerous occasions, an ordinary criminal allegation but one raising a quite specific problem; namely, the issue of misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution. What we have consistently stated is that there is a strong and very clear public interest argument for exhausting the criminal process option before the Senate, or of course the Senate Committee, tries itself to grapple with the question of whether the alleged misbehaviour, which of course here is of a criminal character, has in fact been proved. I do not say anything more now than that the Committee should operate in such a way that it weighs and balances the competing considerations that have been advanced. It is appropriate, I think, that the Committee now be left to determine which procedural option it is, in all the circumstances, most preferable to follow. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.04) —Having just listened to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), I think that sophistry is alive and well and living in the Senate. We have no objection to the letter going to the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Indeed, members of the Committee, through the introduction of the letter to the Senate and its incorporation in Hansard, have notice of the terms of the views of Mr Temby, QC, through that means. The letter reflects the sorts of concerns which the Opposition has been expressing. I must say that what has been expressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions seems to me to be good sense. He points out that in a situation in which additional inquiries are at hand 'any opinion given might become invalidated quite quickly'. Of course, that is true. An opinion given on the basis of facts known today when further facts may be produced tomorrow may be cast into doubt and question and may require the matter to be further considered. Mr Temby makes a number of points. He says that he will respectfully decline to give an opinion : . . . until the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge has taken such evidence into the allegations as might touch upon the question of criminality. That seems to be counsel of commonsense. A little later in his letter he says: Now it is known that the Senate has set up a Select Committee to take evidence, it seems to me to be a pointless exercise, and put my Office in a most invidious position, if we are required to undertake an exercise in parallel to that which is to be performed by the Select Committee. That, of course, is not to say that there is not a role for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The point is that where there is the possibility of a further exposure of facts and information it obviously seems wise to leave the determination of whether or not a criminal offence arises to the determination of those further facts and to the exposure of those further facts. Mr President, I thank you, in common with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for making this letter available to the Opposition. It seems to me that the only quarrel we might have with the Attorney-General is the suggestion that in a sense the Committee should reconsider its role in light of this letter. It seems to me rather that the letter sets out the commonsense proposition that, given the parliamentary course of action which is to be pursued, the second course of action should await the satisfactory conclusion of that other exercise. That would appear to me to be the appropriate course. We welcome the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has, in fact, given the Senate his views in this very prompt way. I do not believe that that affects the work which the Senate Committee is to undertake; rather, it bears out the concern which we expressed about the course which the Government wished immediately to put into hand. If we go back to the original proposition which was put by the Attorney-General we face the possibility that if we had followed the course that he laid down we would have referred this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions may well have considered it in a way that the Senate regarded as inconclusive. The Attorney's original comment of last week made it clear that that was a possibility. We would then have had the prospect of a further Senate inquiry and a further submission to Mr Temby at the end of that. Thus what Mr Temby has disclosed in his response is a concern which should have been evident to the Government at the time when the original suggestion was put forward. My only concern about the matter is that I do not think, as was inferred by the Attorney-General in his comments, that the letter gives rise to the possibility that the Committee should decide that it should make no further inquiry. Rather, the letter underlines the commonsense proposition that the Committee should complete its work, that the Parliament should carry out its function and meet its responsibility; then, if there is a residual question about the possibility of criminal prosecution, that matter should be dealt with at that point and not before. Thus, I support the sending of the letter to the Committee, not because I think it amounts to something which should divert it from its course but because, given the fact that the Committee faces a difficult and important task, it is important that it should clearly understand the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions which are set out in his letter to the President of 10 September. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.09) —I would like to say a few words about the letter to the President from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I agree with Senator Chaney that, of course, the letter must go to the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and be within its purview. It seems to me that the letter highlights more than ever the folly of this Government in the way it is using Mr Temby. He is constantly being thrown things. He was brought into the matter at an early stage, when he first started his job. He is being diverted from other things that he no doubt should be doing. He is being used, unfortunately, by the Government as an excuse for putting off things and for trying to take away debate in this Parliament. I am not at all surprised that he finds the present suggestion that he should now start acting a pointless exercise at this stage. I think one must applaud the letter as being one of some courage and some sense. His attitude is not surprising in view of the remarks he made a week or so ago when he said that these matters should be determined by politicians. His immediate reaction to the suggestion that he should be brought into it was that this was not a good idea. Yet the Senate has agreed that he should be asked to make inquiries. Amid all the compromises that went on, that was done as a sop to the Govenrment because the Government wanted it to go that way. The matter was to go on a basis that it would not interfere with the Senate doing its own job and appointing the Committee, as it has done. I think that the letter is further evidence of the Government's misuse of the Director of Public Prosecutions, stopping him from doing the real work he should be doing by reason of its constant intervention, sending him documents and expecting him to do things, when there is a Senate Committee that is actually calling additional evidence. It is not at all surprising that Mr Temby should say that he could not at this stage make decisions and that he would wait until the Senate Committee hears further evidence. I congratulate him on making this forthright statement. I condemn the Government for once again causing embarrassment to Mr Temby. There are desperate situations arising in this country in regard to crime, yet the Government is making a constant effort to distract Mr Temby from his rightful course and his own duty. I condemn the Government for the way in which it is using an important officer in the Administration for political purposes. He is making clear that he is not prepared to be used. I think that the Attorney-General and the Government are to be condemned for using him in this way and trying to stop him from doing his proper duty in the community. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(8.13) —I have just read this letter and I have listened to Senator Missen. He seems to be giving the wrong interpretation of it . Obviously Mr Temby does not want to proceed because the Senate has set up this Select Committee. That is the reason; there was no other reason. That should be made clear. If the proposition of the Government had been agreed to, Mr Temby would not have had any difficulty. The difficulty Mr Temby faces, of course, is that the Opposition, for purely political reasons, set up this peculiar type of committee, which we have debated at length and I do not wish to go over that ground. Let us make it clear-Mr Temby's difficulties were created by the Opposition in setting up that peculiar committee, which is now in operation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.14) —I rise as the only person who recorded a vote against the motion to send this matter to Mr Temby in the first place. I feel exonerated, if I may use that term, by the letter we now have from Mr Temby . If honourable senators look at the letter they will see that what he is saying there is that if he is requested to do what is set out in the motion of 6 September, referring the evidence before the previous Senate Select Committee, then he could not do so; he could not properly discharge his functions. On page 2 of the letter he says: Accordingly, if and when I am formally requested to give an opinion in relation to the first motion passed . . . I will respectfully decline to do so until the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge has taken such evidence into the allegations as might touch upon the question of criminality. It would then be for the Senate to decide whether further materials should be sent to my Office. What he is really saying is that our first motion has no effect at all. The first motion said, and I quote from the Attorney-General's motion on 5 September : That the Senate- (a) refer- (i) all evidence given before the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge . . . . . . to the Director of Public Prosecutions . . . That was the previous Senate Select Committee and that Select Committee no longer exists. Let us make very clear what Mr Temby is saying here. He is saying that that motion of 6 September, and I was the only one to vote against it, is now no longer in existence and nobody will take any notice of it. Ultimately what we will have to do is to determine whether or not, having regard to what the new Senate Select Committee does, we send the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I take the view I took on the previous occasion, that the Senate in so doing is seriously confusing its role and confusing the roles the judiciary, the Executive and the Senate have been given by the Constitution. For the Senate or the Parliament to act as an informant to an officer of the Executive against a member of the judiciary is a serious confusion of our role and a serious undermining of the separation of powers doctrine which is enshrined in the Constitution. I maintain that it was proper for the Senate itself to establish a new committee in order to discharge the obligation we have to determine whether or not there has been misbehaviour on the part of a High Court judge which would warrant his removal from the High Court. We are faced with a situation that is not of our making. It has been thrust upon us and we must discharge that obligation. In this document Mr Temby has said that he is not going to discharge that obligation for us. He has said-let us look at the wording on page 2-that his responsibility is to examine the conduct insofar as the allegations might touch upon the question of criminality. That is his job, it is not ours. Our job is to consider the question of whether the behaviour was such that it would, under the Constitution, warrant an address by the Parliament for the removal of the judge. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats nominating Senators Bolkus, Haines, Lewis and Tate to be members of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Bolkus, Haines, Lewis and Tate, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate dated 6 September 1984, be appointed members of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge. Debate resumed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.20) —Before the debate was interrupted I was directing my remarks to the assets test. I was quoting very interesting support for the assets test from organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry and people like Alexander Downer. I have no doubt that people in this place will remind him of his remarks if and when he arrives here. I suppose it is quite likely that he will. One point I want to allude to is the very curious argument mounted by the Opposition, both in this place previously and during the recent debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives, about the way in which pensioners were going to be disadvantaged because of the Government had brought down inflation. It would seem that the honourable member for Mackellar ( Mr Carlton) in particular argued that the higher the rate of inflation the larger would be the consumer price index adjustment for pensions. This argument was put to me in this place by Senator Messner and I find it equally unconvincing on this occasion. In fact, I find such an argument quite remarkable . A reduction in the consumer price index is, of course, of benefit to everybody in the community and in particular to people who are on fixed incomes because their fixed incomes, of course, can buy more as the rate of inflation falls or as the price of goods relatively is less. The Government appreciated that the artificial or at least the particular effect on inflation due to the introduction of Medicare could seem to disadvantage pensioners. It was with that in mind also that it introduced a particular and special increase in the pension in this Budget session. I find it quite interesting that some members of the House of Representatives are as false in their arguments as are Opposition senators in this place. Senator Chaney argued that one of his Government's great achievements was the indexation of pensions. In fact, I am reminded that his Government did not introduce indexation but made pension indexation automatic. Indexation of pensions had existed since the time of the previous Government. Senator Chaney said that although indexation was very expensive it was a responsible thing for a government to carry out. I can only agree with the honourable senator; caring for people is expensive. This Government does not withdraw from that. In fact, this legislation quite clearly indicates this Government's commitment to caring for people and meeting the cost of that caring. Of course such items are expensive. But that is exactly what governments have to do sometimes. Governments have to make those expensive commitments. They can do that only in terms of a recovery in the economy. This Government had to address the particular difficulties of a government coming to office with an economy that had bottomed as low as it can go, the highest level of unemployment for many years, massive inflation and a huge deficit. The Government has addressed all of those things. It further addressed some of the priorities that it has as a government. It has done all that in the face of the problems associated with reducing the deficit and encouraging considerable recovery within the economy. I heard it further argued by Senator Chaney that the assets test is inequitable . I ask the honourable senator to weigh the inequity of the assets test that we have introduced against the inequity of having no assets test at all. Quite clearly, the inequity of having no assets test far outweighs some of the minor inequities that might exist within any assets test and of which, of course, there are a few examples within this assets test. To highlight that kind of problem, Senator Chaney quoted the inequity of a pensioner with a $1m house compared with a pensioner with a $50,000 house. I guess that if the honourable senator wants to make his point he can put that sort of proposition. However, I would doubt whether there would be too many pensioners in Australia with $1m homes. If some do have a home of that value, I hope that they have enough income to maintain all of the payments that go with a $1m home and therefore they will not be eligible for a pension under the assets test. I think that this is a very peculiar and silly example. Senator Chaney would be better to address more substantive matters than quoting examples like that. Of course such an inequity is possible within this assets test; however, it is not usual. It is very important to note that very few pensioners would be affected by any difficulties and inequities of someone down the street having a $1m home, compared to their mere humble abode. The essential feature of this new assets test is that it will not affect the majority of pensioners. It does exempt from value the pensioner's home. It also exempts a farm house and an adjacent block of land. It will begin to affect the pension only when, in addition to the home, a single pensioner has assets of $70 ,000 or a pensioner couple has assets of $100,000. It should be pointed out that 30 per cent of pensioners do not own their own homes but rent, live with relatives or live in a nursing home. None of them is going to be troubled by massive assets. In fact, when they do not own their own home, there is a special exemption within the assets test of $50,000 to go some way towards addressing that inequity. Further, the figures to be taken account in the assets test will be indexed so that if inflation rises instead of falling, or holding steady, as is the case now, assets will be so assessed upwards. Again, I think that goes a considerable way to addressing another possible inequity within the assets test itself. Senator Chaney went to great lengths to explain how administratively expensive the assets test would be. On that basis, he is arguing that it was too expensive when he, as Minister, and his Government faced the challenge and so they decided that they would not adopt it. This Government does not resile from taking hard steps. It has gone ahead with introducing the assets test because it judges that the inequity of not having an assets test far outweighs either the administrative costs or the difficulties of having one. In fact, Senator Chaney went on to argue that the assets test will recoup only $50m next year-that is a year down the line. He seemed to suggest that the $50m is neither here nor there in terms of the whole Budget so who would be bothered collecting it? This Government will be bothered collecting it. We have had some difficulty in collecting money forgone. The difficulties that we have had with taxation legislation in this place highlights this. But no, the Government does not move away from $50m. This amount may, as Senator Chaney says, buy a Kit-Kat for every pensioner. But, again, that is a flippant and silly way to deal with a fairly significant amount of money that will go quite some way towards the Government's priorities in regard to redistribution of wealth. I think that Alexander Downer very nicely summarised the position in his article in the Australian of 9 June when he said: Indeed, the previous government abolished the means test in 1976 because it was deemed to be inequitable. But without an assets test the problem will remain. The latest version of the assets test proposed by the Government offers a much more equitable formula than has previously been produced, although inevitable questions will remain about its equity. The challenge ahead must be to ensure the assets test is as equitable as possible. Indeed, I think the Government has gone a considerable way to addressing those challenges. I am pleased that a person like Alexander Downer, who in this case is acting as the Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, sees and judges the Government's assets test proposals in that way. I am sorry that he is not here to vote in support of the Government's legislation. However, I am happy to say that I am delighted to support this Government's legislation. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.28) —The Senate is debating the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. The Bill is really in two parts-one part deals with the pensions assets test and the other deals with Budget measures that vary certain pensions. Let me turn to the part that I first mentioned, the pensions assets test. This Bill replaces the notorious Bill which has now been allowed to lapse because of the benefits it gave to collectors of antiques and the like-people such as the Treasurer of this nation Mr Keating. That Bill was notorious for its unfairness and inequity. Now we have the same Bill in a different guise lumped together with some Budget initiatives to make sure it gets through the Senate. I heard Senator Crowley say that there are a few inequities in the assets test proposed in this Bill. That is a masterpiece of understatement if ever I have heard it. If anything, this Bill is worse than the last because first and foremost it discriminates more against ex-servicemen and women than did the former Bill. In fact, the two Ministers concerned-the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt)-cannot even get their acts together because the Department of Social Security plans to write to pensioners asking for self-evaluation of their assets whilst the Department of Veterans' Affairs is asking 10 specific questions on which it will base a valuation of the assets of veterans. Social security pensioners will be able to have, in effect, a Paddington Bear type self- evaluation of their assets whilst service pensioners will be dependent on a judgment by bureaucrats based on the answers they give to the questions. When Senator Grimes introduced this legislation he claimed: . . . resources will not be dissipated on those who do not require assistance. But he has skated around the inherent inequities in this Bill. The best test of any taxation measure is that it should yield the largest possible revenue at the least cost and the least possible disturbance to people and the business of the nation. The cost of setting up and implementing the assets test over a period of two years will be about $50m. During those two years, having spent the $50m to set it up, it will raise only $18m. How that can be seen to be a revenue raising measure is a little beyond me. However, according to the Minister, and he concedes these figures are somewhat rubbery, once that money has been spent and the scheme has been set up-in other words, the staff have been employed and they all know what they are doing, the papers have all been printed and all the red tape has been carefully put into place the following year it will raise $30m. I just wonder what has happened to the supposed budgetary reform measures which the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) was going to give us. He was to provide financial impact statements with all the legislation he introduced into the Parliament but we do not have a financial impact statement for this legislation and we really do not know what its effect will be. I said that Senator Grimes had said that the figures were rubbery. He said: It is difficult to estimate the overall effect of the assets test on outlays, owing to the lack of data on pensioners' asset holdings and income distribution. On the most optimistic figures, according to the Minister it will cost $10m to net $60m after three years of operation. After this scheme has been established, after spending $50m on setting it up, each year thereafter it will apparently raise $60m at a cost of $10m. So over 16 per cent of the revenue raised by this test will be spent in the raising of it, and that is Senator Grimes's guesstimate. My guesstimate is that a closer assessment of the cost of raising this revenue is 25 per cent. That is what Senator Chaney was talking about when he referred to the cost of raising the revenue. Senator Crowley says this Government will pursue this $50m because it needs the $50m to implement its priorities of redistribution. We are talking about budget revenue in excess of $ 50,000m. The Budget is way over that figure, and here we are talking about pursuing people for the sum of $60m a year and spending $50m to set up the scheme to pursue them and then $10m a year or more chasing that $60m. The Government has $50,000m to spend. I cannot believe that this can be seen in any way to be a sensible tax measure. Apart from being an inefficient tax which cannot be accurately measured, as I have said, it is also an unfair tax. It penalises the thrifty and independently minded people who have strived during their working lives to save for their retirement. They are the ones who will be hit by this tax. It discriminates between Australians. It favours the spendthrift, the person who throws his money around and wastes it, as opposed to the person who in some way or another endeavours to save his funds and provides for himself and his family during his retirement. It encourages people to go on to the age pension as their sole means of support in retirement. Recently I had a letter from a constituent who said: Three years ago, ill health dictated early retirement. In order to conserve our modest superannuation and savings we decided to sell our large Melbourne suburban home and move to the country. We invested 1/3rd of the proceeds of the sale and with the balance purchased 25 hectares- that is a little more than 50 acres in my language- and built a small house to suit our reduced circumstances. We have enjoyed ourselves establishing a vegetable garden and keeping a few pet sheep. The absence of mail deliveries, garbage collections and town water have been offset by the peacefulness. Now to our alarm we are informed that our Veterans part- pension is jeopardised. The assets test will allow only 5 acres. that is, around two hectares- 'home paddock curtilage'-the remainder must be valued and declared an asset with consequent pension reduction or elimination. Even though our property does not generate any income as a farm and is valued at less than the average suburban home. We are faced with three unpalatable options: 1. Sell and return to urban living 2. Sell off 'excess' land (if Shire permits such subdivision) 3. 'Pay as you die' 'Pay as you die' is an option this Government is offering people such as these. The total assets of that couple would be much less than the value of a large suburban home which would not attract any assets penalty. I pose the question: Is that fair and equitable? Take an elderly person who is forced to move into full boarding accommodation. Senator Crowley, who spoke before me, boasted of the fact that this legislation would enable $50,000 to be set aside by such people. If the $50,000 were invested at 10 per cent or more-say 10 per cent, in good government securities-and produced $5,000 a year income, could these people live in a boarding home on full board, which is what a lot need, on $100 a week? Look at the standard of accommodation they will be pushed into as a result of trying to live on $100 a week. Such people are in an impossible situation. As they try to maximise their income to meet their own living expenses, they lose more and more of their government benefits in reduced pensions, increased taxation or both. Is that fair and equitable? Coupled by this Government with a sharp increase in taxation on lump sum superannuation payments, this is a further example of the way in which this Government has singled out the back- bone of Australian society, the prudent and thrifty families, people who have paid their fair share or more of taxes all their working lives, for special punitive treatment. Because of their prudence and thrift they have put aside a little sum of money for their comfort in retirement, but they are continually threatened and punished by this Government. Certainly the assets test is an unjust and inequitable tax on the elderly of this nation. The second part of this Bill to which I will refer concerns Budget measures and other amendments dealing with some increases in pension payments. I acknowledge that it increases some allowances for those in the category of the genuinely needy. No one would quarrel with that. I must say in passing, however, that this Government needs to look at the causes of the huge increase in young pensioners in our community. Many of them are only in their twenties. It is the failure to care for families and in particular the single income families which upsets me. While this so-called Budget measure contained in the Bill does increase some pensions, it is what it does not do that is important. This Budget demonstrates this Government's total disregard for traditional family values in this country. The single income family-that is, the family in which only one of the parents works-is 7 per cent worse off in real terms under this current Budget than the two-income family-that is, the family in which both parents are working. The decision in this Budget not to index spouse and children's allowances places a real burden on that section of the community. Since the Government took office 18 months ago, the real value of the Australian dollar, that is, its purchasing power, has fallen by more than 10 per cent. I congratulate the Government for the fact that it has fallen by only 10 per cent. I do not know that this Government had much to do with it. I think that the Fraser Government had more to do with it. Under this Government, through luck, good management or something, it has fallen by only 10 per cent. But the truth of the matter is that the purchasing value of the Australian dollar has fallen 10 per cent. What cost a person $10 18 months ago now costs more than $11. Every housewife would know that. In fact, everyone knows it is costing more every day that one goes into a shop to buy the simple necessities of life. This Government has not increased the family allowance. It has not increased the dependent spouse rebate and the tax threshold. This Government, by not increasing those items, has affected a real discount on those things. It has mounted a genuine attack on the family of this country. I say again: It is the family allowance, the dependent spouse rebate and the failure to increase the tax threshold which concern me. That is a great problem with this Budget. I think it demonstrates that this Government does not give a damn about men and women struggling to support their families. This government is more concerned about looking after the rights of lesbians, homosexuals and any other vocal minority in this community. It is not interested in looking after the silent majority in the community. It is not interested in looking after family, the people who are the very backbone in this country. It is only interested in looking after the people who are able to make some loud noise in the party back rooms, instead of trying to look after the people of this country who are so desperately in need of support. I say to the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, and to the Parliament: The deprivation of these people, by failing to index the family allowance, the dependent spouse rebate and the tax threshold, is a national disgrace. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(8.44) —The Senate is debating the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. Normally such a piece of legislation would direct itself to the benefit of the family, to helping the single income family, the mother with children. It would allow a striving family to persist and to overcome the problems which it faced. Senator Lewis very rightly pointed out that this was the hub of any social security test or measure. The fact is that the Bill completely ignores such matters. It could be said with truth that it is another tombstone, indeed a very large tombstone, in the graveyard of Labor's broken promises. Let me examine that. There is still some kind of illusion that the Hawke Government keeps its promises, that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, is someone whose words can be trusted. The fact is that any search of the policy speech and the statements made by Labor in a bid to gain office in March of last year will show dozens upon dozens of broken promises. Today there is a cynical disregard by the Hawke Government and by the Prime Minister in particular for the public and a disregard for the amorality of the broken promises. Let me look at this situation as it affects pensioners. It has been alleged, and incredibly so, that this Budget is beneficial to pensioners. No government in the history of Federation, that I can recollect, has done more to destroy the basic security, the basic ability to plan, of the aged. No government has thrown into insecurity more people in Australia. One of the great things that Australia should strive to do is to enable people, as they approach retiring age and as they plan their retirement, to say: 'These are the immutables. These are the things that will not vary. We will depend upon governments to keep these things in place because if they don't the whole basis on which we have planned our retirement and our family support will collapse'. That is the test. What happened? The Australian Labor Party went to the people and said: 'We will not disturb the social security situation. You people who are over 70 and getting a non-means tested pension should not worry. Don't worry; you will be safe'. Those people had planned along that basis. They had disposed of their assets and made their lifestyle to fit this promise. What happened? The Labor Government was no sooner in office than in the mini-Budget it abolished the existing system, and 52,000 people, who were formerly pensioners, lost their pension. Is this evidence of keeping promises by the Hawke Government? Is this the kind of Prime Minister whom one can trust in the next round of policy speeches? The Prime Minister is eager to have an election soon. His eagerness must be diminishing as the environment around him gets a little colder. He will be going to people and making a string of promises. The biggest question the community will be asking is: 'You said to us that your Government, of all governments, would run its full course. You said it was the absolute moral duty of governments to run their full course for three years. Why is it that you are running 20 months instead of 36 months?' Of course, the answer the Prime Minister will not give is that he is running scared; that he has cards up his sleeve for after the election which are not in this Budget. The mechanism that is put in this Budget will not be put into place to work before the election. He will wait until after the election. These are the tests which we must make. In terms of ordinary people, let us look at the Government's promise and performance. A total of 52,000 aged pensioners aged 70 years and over lost their pensions. A great number of those pensioners would have voted for him because they believed they would keep them. It was made perfectly clear by Mr Hawke personally that there would be no attack on the means test. He said: 'That is not the way to do it. There are other ways'. But now in the second or third version of an assets test which we have before us what an attack there is. An assets test is to be established. I will examine that in a minute or two. Mr Hawke said: 'Put us in and in our term of government we will raise the base pension to 25 per cent of the average weekly wage'. Of course, he has not done that. His alibi is that the Government has not been in for three years, but that is of its own choosing. The Government is not staying in office for three years because it knows privately that it will not do these things if, by any mischance , it is re-elected. Mr Hawke said that a Labor government would lift the tax base so that pensioners who moved towards a higher rate of taxation, through inflation, would not be taxed. That has not been fully done. This is a fundamental test of Labor. Here is a government that came to power promising people that they could plan for their future, plan for their families and dispose of their assets as they wished, without any fear. What has been created now is gross insecurity and uncertainty. Never whilst a Labor government is in power will any retired person with any certainly be able to say: 'I have done these things which are providing me with a basic income and I can depend that they will do so in the future', because the Government has shown that that is not so. Let me refer to the simplest of all the confidence tricks because the community must understand what has been done with regard to Medicare and the consumer price index. We have what is called a CPI-a consumer price index-and a statistician works out what has happened to prices. Labor has said that inflation has fallen drastically and therefore it has to raise pensions only marginally, if at all. But the fact is that the CPI has been artificially dropped by 2.6 per cent. I emphasise that prices have not fallen at all. The prices that every one of us must pay for everything that we buy-for all goods and services-have not fallen at all. Medicare is a direct tax and private health insurance is an indirect tax. The Government has said: 'If you take it out of your pocket and pay by way of private insurance we will recognise it and it will provide 2.6 per cent of the CPI. However, if we, the Government, force you to pay a Medibank levy-we take it out of your wages, not out of your private pocket -it will not be included in the consumer price index and the effect will be that we will pretend, and everybody will pretend, that the inflation rate has gone down by 2.6 per cent'. Even proponents of the thimble and pea trick would not try that kind of nonsense. Of course, do not forget that it also affects the average weekly wage. Wages will not go up because the 2.6 per cent figure is an artificial reduction. The Government boasts that the inflation rate is about 7 per cent but on the ordinary score it is at least 9.6 per cent. Nothing has happened to change prices; prices are the same but wages and pensions are not keeping pace because they are fixed to a formula. Any government that can hold back that fact from the people is a government from which one must withdraw one's confidence. That was an incredible piece of audacity and, of course, it is now underlying the whole of the Government's framework. When the Government pretends that it has moved up the pension a notch or two towards 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, it does not say that the average weekly wage is held down by the same 2.6 per cent. In fact, it has done nothing of the sort and it is an illusion. When we look at the whole Budget and this Bill, one thing appears certain: There is nothing for the family unit-a man, his wife and children. Above all, there is nothing for the single income earner in the Budget. One would think that if this were a government for the family there would be some increase in the dependent spouse allowance. Inflation has gone up by about 9 per cent to 10 per cent in real terms and the dependent spouse allowance, by remaining stable, has been devalued, as has the Australian dollar at this moment by the magic of the float-another piece of independent genius. Senator Robert Ray —Do you disagree with it? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask the interjector whether he disagrees with what I am saying about broken promises. Listen to the silence. That, of course, is the most eloquent of answers. Where is there any increase in family allowances, which provide support for children, formerly known as child endowment? Inflation has gone up to 9 per cent or 10 per cent and existing family allowances have been devalued. The situation is much more insidious than that. This Budget is really the final piece of three attempts-the mini-Budget of May last year, the Budget of August last year and this Budget. Do not make any mistake about this: The overall robbery from taxpayers by the action taken in the mini-Budget means that another $2,000m was taken in for this year. That figure is the Government's figure, as set out in the mini-Budget, and not mine. It took in $2,000m more; and that is why it now has a bolstering of its revenue. But what kind of government is it that can do that and give nothing to the pensioners, nothing to wives and families and nothing towards family allowances? In a recession, when families are suffering badly and there is unemployment, there needs to be a bit of humanity. Let us look at what is happening in regard to an assets test. Last year in the August Budget or thereabouts the Government said: 'We are bringing in an assets test. We are renewing an assets test. We will stop all those wicked people double dipping. We will not allow them to do that and we will take tens of millions of dollars from them and give it to the poor because the needy need it' . That is brave stuff. Indeed, if it is done, it is good stuff in terms of giving to the needy. But let us see what else the Government said. Ministers said: 'What we are thinking of is about $200m to $300m of savings'. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) in this place is on record as saying: 'It will affect something less than 400,000 people'. Let us get that straight. There are about two million pensioners and the Hawke Government was quite happy and complacent in taking away or reducing the pensions of 400,000 pensioners, which is a huge proportion. Of course, the Opposition in this place pursued that assets test, showed it to be the nonsense that it was and to be utterly ridiculous and inequitable, a thing that would not solve the problem, a thing that would allow people to fiddle the till and get away with it and a thing that would punish honest people . Indeed, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, had to admit in public that his Government had been wrong. He set up the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test, which was supposed to provide a solution. The Gruen panel's first action was to say: 'The basis upon which this Government is arguing is quite wrong'. The Government was arguing that it had to do something about the growing cost of social security because in the decades ahead, as we go into the 1990s, the year 2000, the year 2010 and so on, the burden will rise and rise. The Gruen panel said that at least until the year 2030 or 2040 that would not be so because Australia is facing at the same time a falling birth rate and any increase in age pensions would be offset by all the costs of a child's education, adolescence and all of these things. So down went the first dolly. The Gruen panel said that the basis of the Government's argument was wrong. The Gruen panel wanted to include the family home in the assets test. We, the Opposition, showed the terrible injustice of that proposal. The Government panicked and has altered it. Now, because the Government is within a few months of an election that should not be happening- and maybe it will receive a surprise in regard to it-it has retreated for the moment. It is setting up in this Bill a large mechanism. There was talk of 1,500 extra employees. I think the Minister has said there will be 300 administering the scheme in the longer term and about $30m will be put aside to implement the scheme at its base. So it is meant to be a very large scheme. Therefore, one must believe that its aim is to deal with and achieve benefit for the Government from a very large number of people-something like the 400,000 that the Government talked about before, and the $200m to $300m that it talked about before. There is the incredible situation that the costs and the income under this Budget will virtually equate. There will not be any gain. There will not be money to take and give to the most needy at the other end of the scale. Even for the years ahead nothing like that is evident. What is the Government doing? Quite clearly, it has said that this assets test is designed for one purpose, and that is to stop double dipping. It is to get very considerable sums of money from one end of the pensioner scale and to use it wholly or partially for those at the other end. If one were to apply more money to the other end of the scale, to the very poor, one could not argue with that. There is no doubt that there is a real need in Australia to look to the really poor. I commend the Government for its aid to single parents and others living in rented premises. There can be nothing more desolate and impoverished than the poor, who are battling with children or living alone in rented premises . Most of the aged and most of the pensioners are supported in some way by families. Either they have a house or their relatives take them in, and they can , of course, have considerable benefits; but the person alone who is not being helped by anyone is the main target, and I commend the Government for some minor help in that regard. Two things are said about this legislation: On the one hand, it will yield big money somewhere in the future; secondly, we senators in the Opposition are wrong to say that the assets of all pensioners will be open to scrutiny. The Government says: 'Oh, no, we will not put people into the pensioners' homes'. It is trying to say that nobody has any need to fear scrutiny. That is an argument to the nth degree of the ridiculous. If it is said that this scheme is going to be an honour scheme-that is, that people are honour bound to tell the truth, and if they do not tell the truth no punishment will come to them-that is nonsense. The whole basis of the Hawke Government's approach is that those who do not deserve to get the pension will not get it. The Government cannot have it both ways. According to the Government's view-it is not my view-those who do not deserve to get a pension can make any statement they like regarding their assets , but they will not get the money. That cannot be true. In any case, I think the Government is resting on the basis-I would be interested to be corrected by the Minister in due course-that it has not got the power, under this Bill, to enter homes. If anyone believes that is a total power, he has not heard of the powers of the Commissioner of Taxation or the powers under the basic Social Services Act to inspect bank accounts, assets outside the home, holiday homes, to go through municipal councils' records to trace people's assets in the ordinary way that can be done. So nobody should believe that there is no threat. The aged who have made plans and disposed of their incomes can never be sure, while Labor is in power, that they will ever be safe. Let us test that theory, because the Labor Party is talking about helping the poor. One of the most insidious things it did in the previous Budget was that, whilst failing to index direct taxes, it indexed indirect taxes and excise. Let us look at the sort of mind that does that. The way to help people is to index taxes so they are not pushed from the 36c level to the 46c level when they do not deserve it. That would be equitable, but did the Government do that? Not on your life! This new Budget has pushed tens of thousands of people into the 46c bracket. The Government said: 'We are not going to face the odium at every Budget of pushing up the price of beer, cigarettes and petrol, the small amenities of the ordinary person, the retired person. We will get away with it by very snide means. We will index those things once and they will be indexed forever'. The Government has indexed excises. It is not good enough to index taxes to stop them going up. It has said: 'Let us index excises so we will get more and more money.' So the Government takes that money from everybody, including the very poor, yet it says it does not have the money to increase pensions. Clearly the Government has created an illusion of an increase in pensions. If one takes account of the 2.6 per cent Medicare levy-that has been admitted by the Government-it is obvious that the pensioners have been robbed of a very significant increase. Let me look at what happened in the past. The Fraser Government removed the property test in 1975-76 because it realised the impossibility of getting a test that would work with equity. It realised also that the best way to create wealth in this country for everybody is to encourage voluntary providence, for everybody to become little capitalists if they can, to save if they can, and to take their money and dispose of it in the way they want to. That, after all, is Australianism to the backbone. It is the right of any Australian to work hard, to save, to take that money and to use it in any way he wishes-to give it to his kids, to pay off the mortgage, or to leave it in his will. That is the fundamental right of every Australian. Yet there is a double test on this. There is to be a most horrible tax-indeed, something like 31 per cent-on lump sum superannuation. So everybody who has been planning with the certainty that that would never happen-2.2 million Australians-now face a completely different situation. All of those who thought there would be no property test have found suddenly that there is one. It is an impossibility. When the pension was introduced it became clear that more and more people would be able to get a pension, that it would become more and more like a basic superannuation. By the time it had run its full course, something like 89 per cent-almost the whole community-of all people who were eligible by age for a pension were getting one. That was the express desire of the Australian people. There is no way that any government can wind back the clock. To do so on this, however much one might think, in simplicity, that one can save a bit of money in one area and transfer it to the more needy, is to cause more and more inequities on the journey. Every family has a different problem. Every retired person has a different range of responsibilities and things to do with this money-keeping other people, helping out their families, doing all sorts of things that are part of living. If the Government is going to destroy the ability of retired people to do this, it is destroying their very spirit. Once their independence, their striving, their right to feel dignified and secure is destroyed, their spirit and their reason to live are destroyed. We, as a government, having looked at this situation, came to the conclusion that that was an impossibility. What we have said is quite clear: When we are returned to government we will repeal this legislation before us today. We made that quite clear today. I repeat: If a government is carrying out the will of the electorate, that government must direct itself to measures that support the family, the man, his wife and children, measures that will bolster the standard of living of families, whether they consist of working wives or mothers struggling at home. A government should give more support through family allowances and dependent spouse allowances that will help but not hinder. This Bill has done the very reverse. It has done more than that. It has revealed to the Australian people something that every one of the two million pensioners must understand, that is, that whatever promises the Hawke Labor Government may give, they are not worth the breath that articulated them. The fact is that all the promises on this matter that were made by the Hawke Labor Party and by Mr Hawke prior to the election have been broken since then. With a Labor Government in office, aged people and those planning for retirement face the fact that they can never be sure of their future. They can never be sure that they have done the right thing. They can be sure of only one thing- that the Government is determined to chase any savings they have, to seek out any providence they have and to stop them from doing the kinds of things they want to do. When a government does that to Australia, it destroys basic Australianism and it deserves to lose office. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.12) —Tonight we are discussing the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill 1984. The prime purpose of this Bill is the implementation of the assets test. However, before I get on to the assets test, I wish to say just a few words about the proposed increase in age pensions. We all know about the promises that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, made before he came to government. Senator Sir John Carrick has also talked about them. We all remember that election in March when he said with a grand flourish: 'We will not touch the pension cheques of age pensioners. We will not touch their superannuation'. Letters were sent to us here in the Parliament from several groups of superannuants saying that they had received a reply from the Prime Minister prior to the election promising that he would not touch superannuation payments. He also promised to raise the age pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. He also promised that pensions would be adjusted six-monthly so that there would not be a lapse of four months on the immediate six months consumer price index-the lapse to which pensioners objected so much. He also promised that there would be an office of aged care. They were lavish promises. Indeed, when he was making these promises the Prime Minister said: . . . I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. The sensible thing to do, he said, was to make sure that your commitments do not have to be broken. They were fine words. We all remember them very well. I am sure that pensioners particularly remember those words because they believed that he meant what he said. This is the man who says that his credibility is high. This is the man who says: 'People know me. They can trust my word.'. Can they trust his word? There would not be an Australian left who regards that man with any credibility, who would trust his word again. He promised to raise pensions to 25 per cent of the average weekly wage in his first Parliament. How much did he raise them in this Budget? The Prime Minister tells us very clearly that he is going to an election between now and March so there will not be another Budget. What did he do in his final Budget? In fact he raised the pension by 35c because the other $2.15, as pensioners well know, combats the Medicare fiddle. Senator Sir John Carrick explained that Medicare fiddle very clearly to us tonight. So pensioners are left with a 35c increase in their pension towards the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings that they were promised. A pension equivalent to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings would have meant an increase of $4.25, not 35c, so we can well understand why the pensioners will never trust that man again. What is that 35c to cover? That 35c now covers the indexed sales tax on petrol, cigarettes and beer. After the Budget came out, someone said to me: 'I suppose I can put up with the 10 per cent tax on wine because at least he has not touched cigarettes and beer'. What a hoax! What a con! Rather than increase taxes on petrol, beer and cigarettes at Budget time and collect the odium that results, this man indexed them to rise every six months so that people are unaware of it and so that come Budget time they say: 'I can put up with the wine tax because at least he has not raised taxes on cigarettes, petrol and beer'. What a con! But the Prime Minister did say-and everyone will remember it very clearly-that he would not touch pensions. Honourable senators will remember that before the election Mr Fraser said: 'People will be better off with their money under their beds'. Honourable senators will remember the derision which arose from that statement, which we all know so well has proved so accurate. Pensioners would be far better off with their money under their beds because this man has taken it from their pension cheques. What has the Hawke Government done to pensioners over 70 years of age since it came to power? It took a lousy $52 a week from those pensioners. They were no longer means tested. He said: 'I am going to means test the lot' and took a lousy $52 a week from pensioners aged over 70. It would have been so easy for Mr Hawke and this Government to have said: 'From now on anyone who turns 70 will be means tested'. But no, he said: 'We will go back and take it from them'. This upset the planning of every pensioner over 70 who was not means tested. Every pensioner aged 70 or over who was collecting that $52 and was not meanst tested was affected in planning for the rest of their lives. As I have said in this place before, their sons had organised their financial arrangements. Many pensioners had to alter their place of living so that they could cope with their financial arrangements when that $52 was taken back by the Government. Why were those promises broken? What excuse could Mr Hawke and the Labor Government give for all these broken promises? We were told a cock and bull story about a $7.6 billion deficit that was supposed to have been left by the previous Government. The story was told so well, so thoroughly and so repeatedly by this honest Prime Minister that his own back benchers and new candidates believed him. Senator Cook came into this place and said that in the 1982-83 financial year the previous Government had left a $9.6 billion deficit. When pulled up by honourable senators on this side of the House he was forced to come back into the Senate and apologise, saying he had made a dreadful mistake. The figure he quoted was not the deficit that was left by the previous Government because it left a deficit of $4.5m, not $9.6m. Senator Cook had swallowed the brainwashing so thoroughly that as a new candidate he gobbled it all up and after being elected he came into this House and tried to put the story across. The biggest lie of all time was perpetrated on the people of Australia. As a result the people of Australia thought that it was necessary for the Government to break its promises, but they are now waking up to the fact that this Prime Minister can no longer be trusted. We have the situation that the family allowance and the dependent spouse rebate have not been increased since the Australian Labor Party came to power. That shows how it cares for the traditional family. It has increased spending on the dependent spouse rebate to include de factos, but it has not increased that rebate since it has been in power. As a result the value of the dependent spouse rebate has gone down by 10 1/2 per cent since the Government has been in office. The family allowance has also gone down by the same amount. Perhaps it would be appropriate to deal now with the assets test, something which this Bill deals with. The assets test, according to Professor Gruen, who was one of its architects, could also be classed as including death duties. When he was told that this pay as you die scheme that the Government has brought in could be classed as death duties, he did not resile from that and said: 'You can call it that if you like'. It did not worry him because he believed in death duties and thought this measure most appropriate. Pensioners will be paying gift tax and they will be the only section in the community that is not allowed to give its children gifts. They are also the only group in the community that has to pay death duties and that will be fully taxed-double taxed-on lump sums. We have gone through Mark I and Mark II and we are now up to Mark III of the assets test. We all remember the lovely proposal relating to antiques, holiday homes, yachts and cars that the Government tried to bring in. After Senator Grimes introduced that measure, we all remember Mr Hawke, speaking at the Press Club in front of television cameras, saying-before he had told his Ministers-that this measure was all a mistake, that Senator Grimes had done a terrible thing, that it was all so unjust that he would change it all and he would get a committee to look at it. Senator Crowley stood up here today and said: 'Yes, of course there are some inequalities in the system. I am not suggesting it is all perfect; there are just a few inequalities'. That is all very well if one is not affected by such inequialities and if one is on the right side. But for a person on whom such inequalities have been perpetrated, it does not do much good to have Government members saying: 'Of course there are a few inequalities. So what? You cannot have a system without them'. Yes, we can have a system without them. That was why we dropped the assets test. The simple inequality at the moment is that anyone can own a home of any value and have the same amount of money as any other person in other assets. Senator Crowley said not many people own a home worth $1m. Let us bring it down a little ; let us cut it in half. A pensioner could have a home worth $400,000 or worth $ 500,000 and other assets worth $100,000 if married or worth $70,000 if single. Such a person is treated in exactly the same way as are people with a modest home worth $40,000 and the same $100,000 or $70,000 worth of assets. Those are simple inequalities, but there are many others. I will give one example that was brought to our notice by the Business Review Weekly. There are some very interesting articles covering many pages in the Business Review Weekly that I am sure Government members would be interested in reading. One article states in part: Mr and Mrs D, in their late 60s, own their family home and have other assets valued at $140,000. Of this, $100,000 worth of investments earn $10,400 a year, or $200 a week. Under the income test-- that is, the present one- the couple is entitled to a weekly pension of $78.30. Under the assets test, they are entitled to $73.30 a week. They decide to sell the family home and move into a luxury high-rise apartment, which costs $25,000 more than the proceeds of the sale of their family home. To finance this, they liquidate $25,000 of their income-earning assets. On the remaining $75,000 they earn $150 a week. Under the income test, the couple's weekly pension entitlement is $103.30. Under the assets test, the weekly entitlement, given non-principal home assets of $115,000 would be: $119.10, and so does not apply. There are many inequalities in this new scheme, and it is time the Government and its Department had a good look at them and did not just brush them off by saying: 'The inequalities will not affect terribly many people. The majority of the people will be all right. The inequalities must exist. We must have inequalities because we cannot come up with a scheme that will be equal all round'. What is the Government saving the taxpayers out of all this? We have already heard that last year while it muddled through mark I and mark II of the assets test it spent $25m. It was all wasted. The Government employed people who are no longer required. It sent out all sorts of pamphlets which are no longer required . This year, the first year of the implementation of the assets test, it is not saving the taxpayers a bean. It will cost them $30m. So we have $55m in costs so far. What will that save us in the long run? We are told it will save us $60m in the third year at a cost of $55m. By gee, that is good business! That is really good business for a socialist government! Is the cost to people, the cost of sacrifice, the cost of suffering and the cost of planning all worth that $55m? I will finalise my comments by saying that the Business Review Weekly states: . . . if the bill becomes law, it will etch its way into the entire social fabric of the nation and change not only the way we think about lump sums in retirement, but also the way companies and businesses arrange their superannuation. In addition, if we want to retain fairness in our socieity, it will cause us to look at the way we give public servants a lot more than most others when it comes to retirement . . . the assets test has been structured to effectively become a tax of lump sums by a different name. It will cause governments to have a look to see why we give public servants a lot more than we give most others when it comes to retirement. It is because of this inequality that the Opposition will not support this Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(9.30) —in reply-I thank honourable senators who have spoken in this debate on the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill which introduces the budgetary measures in social security, including the assets test, announced by the Government in the last Budget. I am rather disappointed and surprised at the nature of the debate. I remind honourable senators that, in fact, the legislation does increase benefits to help pensioners and social welfare beneficiaries, in particular those with children and those in private rental accommodation. I think all those measures are important but as Opposition senators, with the exception of Senator Messner, do not seem to be interested in those aspects of the Bill, I suppose it is pointless to dwell too much on them. However, I will point out that there has been general acceptance of the measure in the community. It is realised that budgetary restrictions were placed on the Government by the parlous state of the economy, which we inherited. Most people consider that for the Government to have increased expenditure on new social security measures by almost $400m, $616m in a full year, added to the almost $1, 000m which is inbuilt into social security in this country at the same time as it decreased taxes, increased the number of people in employment and presided over practically the largest decrease in inflation in this country's history meant that this was a responsible and reasonable Budget. Those honourable senators opposite who have spoken, particularly this evening, seem to have had two chief interests in this legislation. The first, of couse, is the assets test. The second interest I find most interesting because Senator Walters, Senator Sir John Carrick before her and Senator Lewis before him spoke particularly about the failure of the Government to increase family allowances or the dependent spouse rebate. In fact, Senator Lewis said that the failure to index family allowances was a disgrace. Apart from the fact that there is nothing about the dependent spouse rebate in this legislation, nor should there be as any change to that would appear in other legislation, I felt that before we pass on from that I should remind honourable senators of the Government's record in this respect. The previous Government introduced family allowances. Despite what Senator Walters and others at various times have said, the Opposition at that time-I was shadow Minister-approved the introduction of family allowances. The former Government increased the family allowance for third and fourth children in 1981 and for the first and second children in 1982. In other words, from the time the Fraser Government came into office in 1975 to the 1982 Budget those were the only increases in family allowances granted. Yet Senator Walters has the cheek to condemn this Government for not increasing family allowances in its first 18 months of government. Senator Walters —What about the dependent spouse rebate? Senator GRIMES —I am talking about what is in this legislation. Senator Walters condemned this Government for not increasing family allowances when the Government she supported did not do so in six years in office. In all that time, Senator Walters did not bleat once. I remind Senator Walters and honourable senators opposite that a $1 a month increase in family allowances would cost $ 52m a year. Honourable senators opposite can calculate what the sorts of increases they imply are necessary would cost and what they would have done to the Budget deficit. We make no apology for the fact that we could not increase family allowances this year. We did not hear any apology from Senator Walters, Senator Sir John Carrick or Senator Lewis for the failure of the Fraser Government to increase those allowances in all the years they were in government . We have some confusion on the other side of the House about what we should do about the dependent spouse rebate. Senator Walters said we should have increased it this year. In fact, I think her remark was that we should have indexed it. Senator Jack Evans the other night said we should have abolished the dependent spouse rebate and turned all those payments- Senator Messner —He is not part of the Opposition. Senator GRIMES —I said 'senators opposite'. Senator Walters —But he is a member of the Labor Party. He is not a Liberal. Senator GRIMES —Am I not allowed also to talk about what the Australian Democrats say? Does Senator Walters consider herself the only person in this place who is capable of talking on social security? The fact that Senator Walters spent most of her speech talking about indirect taxes and other taxes is typical of the fact that she had nothing to say on this legislation or nothing that was worth while saying. The only person opposite whom I can remember raising a question about the actual measures in the legislation was Senator Messner. He raised the matter of the increase in the under-18 unemployment benefit being limited to those who had been on the unemployment benefit for six months. I believe that Senator Coates answered that adequately by pointing out that this Government, unlike the previous Government, is not satisfied with the situation in this country in which we have 36 different payments for children. We have a large number of educational allowances which in some cases are inadequate and in many cases misdirected. We have that multiplicity of payments which was demonstrated very adequately in the report that was put out by the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat. We are not satisfied with the situation in which people leave school and at the age of 16 to all intents and purposes have only two choices: To go on unemployment benefits or to get a job. We are proceeding with a wide ranging review of the income support that we provide for youth in this country. We are going ahead with that review because we believe that our retention rate in upper secondary and tertiary education is deplorable because it is so much lower than that in comparable countries. We have to develop a better system. We are to develop a better system. In the light of the development of that new system, it was a budgetary decision that we limit those increases to that group of people. I remind Senator Messner, who seems to be very concerned about this, that from 1975 to, I think, 1982 there was no increase at all in the under-18 unemployment benefit rate. But again Senator Messner had no worries or qualms about that in all the years he was in government; it becomes a horrendous crime when the present Government, the Labor Government, does not make the changes in this community that he suddenly finds are urgent and necessary. I do not suppose there is any subject which has had as much public debate and consultation as the proposed assets test. I do not suppose there is any subject which has been so widely debated within the community and which has been so widely debated within the community and which at various stages has created-but not now, I suggest, except in the ranks of the Liberal Party-so many different views. Of course, people are interested and will continue to be so. People will sometimes be concerned and sometimes mystified because it is always very easy to misrepresent a change of this type. The most extreme opposition to the change same from Senator Sir John Carrick when he spoke earlier tonight. He gave the typical cry of the conservatives in this community. He said that we should change nothing. He said, in fact, that we should make things immutable so that people could be absolutely certain where they are. That is the sort of proposition which is absolutely typical of someone like Senator Sir John Carrick. If we never made any changes, as advocated by the honourable senator, we might as well all stay at home. We might as well not recognise that this world changes and that the change-- Senator Messner —That is misrepresenting his position and you know it. Senator GRIMES —I point out to Senator Messner that they were the words he used. He said that we should change nothing in this area and that we should make things immutable so that people can be absolutely certain where they are. We know where people will be and we know one of the reasons we have to introduce an assets test is that the previous Government actually changed something and removed the assets test in 1976, and as a result of that a whole industry has grown up around avoiding the income test. I must borrow the words that Senator Crowley quoted tonight because they are worth repeating and I think they are important. The first quote is this: The Government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test . . . the latest version of the assets test proposed by the Government offers a much more equitable formula than has previously been produced . . . It would be folly . . . to reject the assets test outright, as it is the only avenue which leads to effective control over the spiralling costs of retirement policies. That quote was by Alexander Downer, the director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, on 9 June 1984. As Senator Crowley pointed out, Alexander Downer is now an endorsed Liberal Party candidate for a seat which opposition members and many members of the Labor Party believe he will win. He will be in the House of Representatives after the next election unless something strange happens. That is Alexander Downer's view. It shows that the Liberal Party is hopelessly divided. Let me add another quote: I have always argued that the social security system should be based on need. Therefore I do support the assets test . . . What we have now is an assets test that will cut pensions off for people who are affluent and wealthy. I think it's a good start. That quote was from John Elliott, Managing Director of Elders IXL Ltd, and Treasurer of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. The quote was in the Australian Financial Review on 6 June 1984. Senator Messner —Come on now, you are sinking low now. Senator GRIMES —Senator Messner can disown all those people and say that they should not have said those things. He can say that Alexander Downer did not know that he would get pre-selection and he should not have said outrageous things like that. But the Liberal Party did not mind his saying it. The pre-selection committee in South Australia, Senator Messner's home State, did not mind his saying it because they pre-selected him out of a whole field of people. The man they wanted to represent them in Parliament says the Government is absolutely right in introducing an assets test. Of course the Government is absolutely right. I am glad that there are some people is the Liberal Party who are able to give their honest views in that way. The most important thing to mention in the short time that I have tonight is that although we have had a long and public debate, although Senator Gietzelt and I and other Government members have talked to almost every pensioner organisation and veterans organisation in the country and although, as Senator Haines said, the debate has largely subsided, because of the introduction of the new assets test, there are still people on the opposite side who desperately try to misrepresent the issue, and in doing so have an unfortunate effect on this debate and on some pensioners in the community. Once again, Senator Sir John Carrick is, as he usually is, absolutely typical of that class of people. Tonight he talked about the new powers that the Department of Social Security had to do all sorts of terrible things to people, such as enter homes and so on. He backed off from using Mr Parry's argument that we would ask people to take off all their clothes off so we could search them. That was Mr Parry, who fought the valiant battle for so many years in this country against decimalisation of currency and the introduction of the metric system. That same gentleman is still at it. Having lost those two battles he has now entered another battle that he is going to lose. Senator Sir John Carrick did not use the terms that Senator Townley used about 'Social Security police' or 'storm troopers' or any of that nonsense. He stopped a little short of that florid language as, I suppose, a knight of the realm should. But he talked about the Department of Social Security using these new powers to enter houses and do all these terrible things . However, he cannot quote from the legislation where this power is given and he will not be able to quote it in the Committee stage either, because there is no such power in this legislation. The power that the Department of Social Security has is the power that it has always had and the same power that it had when Senator Sir John Carrick sat in the chair in front of me as Leader of the Government and so vigorously defended everything that the previous Government did in matters of social security. We have had the disgraceful example of Mr Hodgman, the member for Denison in another place, saying that people will be assessed for the amount of gold in their teeth. That is a statement that he has repeated over the last few months. That is a disgraceful, despicable and lying comment on a very serious subject, but then we have Mr Hodgman's example of someone in this Parliament who will say or do anything to get a headline, and who said on his return from overseas: 'I will do anything, anything at all to defeat the Hawke Labor Government'. But Mr Hodgman and his ilk and those people who do it in a more subtle way in their electorate offices-who tell people who make inquiries that they should sell all their goods, people like Senator Walters who tell people to put money under their beds-are a disgrace in this place. But that is the sort of thing that we will have to put up with. The fact is that the legislation does not give anyone the authority to enter homes. There is nothing in the legislation that gives people the authority to do that, nor will there be. Claims are made that there will be a vast bureaucracy of thousands and thousands of people who will have pensioners all filling out forms and who will harass the pensioners of this country. Senator Walters quotes freely from evidence that was given to her in the Estimates Committee by officers of the Department, but she did not quote the fact that the numbers will be 1,100 reducing to 300 to maintain the assets test. She talked about the establishment costs in the first year or two, but she did not go on to say how low the maintenance costs will be compared with the benefits that will be gained by taxpayers in general from the assets test. But then, when one is pretty desperate, one becomes selective in one's argument. As a politician, I cannot really complain too much about Senator Walters being selective. The simple fact is, as Senator Gietzelt and I have said many times, the basis of the test is self-assessment. In November 1984, if this legislation goes through, and I assume it will now that the Australian Democrats have said they will not oppose it, some 70 per cent of pensioners will get a letter with a guide to self-assessment. They need return the form only if their self-assessed assets exceed the $70,000 and the $100,000 for single people and married couples who own their own homes, and the $120,000 and $150,000 for those who are not home owners. Fifteen per cent of pensioners will receive a guide plus a statement of assets and they need to return these details only if their self- assessed assets exceed the limits, and 15 per cent will receive a guide and a statement of assets which they must return. Those are the kinds of figures we are talking about. The reason we are relying on self-assessment is that we know that the vast majority of pensioners in this country are honest. Senator Lewis believes that veterans will be discriminated against compared with Department of Social Security pensioners. In fact, all veterans will be sent a form. Most will receive a simple form asking only seven questions. A small number will receive a more detailed form. Both forms will be accompanied by a guide to how they should be completed. The difference in approach between the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Social Security is mainly due to the differences in the way those departments operate and the computer systems that each of those departments have. Because of the simple nature of the Department of Veterans' Affairs forms, veterans should not be put to any significant inconvenience. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has had questions about assets on its forms ever since the previous Government excluded the assets test. The fact is that since the previous Government in 1976 excluded the assets test from the means test which existed, there has been an increasing number of people who, because it has been legal, and because there have been a sufficient number of firms around in the community to develop artificial schemes whereby people could avoid the income test, have been able to avoid the income test and avoid the intent of the legislation. That is not something about which only the present Government talks. Senator Chaney at various times has spoken about this problem. In May 1981 he said: I think we cannot escape the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in this country who do not receive enough help, while some other people by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on the system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. He was quoted again in the Age in August 1983 as having said that in 1981. He has said that and many other things in the past about the necessity for a proper needs-based social security system in this country. What did the honourable senator say tonight when he went through the history of his thinking on the assets test? What did he say tonight in his long, historical speech about what had happened and how he had thought about this matter? He said: 'We did not do it because we thought it was too hard. We tried and it was too hard'. Senator Walters —It was too inequitable. Senator GRIMES —Let us talk about equity, now that Senator Walters has raised it . Very good examples were put forward tonight of the mixed views the Opposition side has on equity. Senator Sir John Carrick first got up and, in a gross mis- statement of the facts, to paraphrase him, said: 'The Government introduced an assets test. There was controversy about that assets test.' All that is true. There were difficulties about that assets test, so the Government got a panel under Professor Gruen to have a look at the whole proposition. The members of Professor Gruen's group gave their time voluntarily to look at this matter- people such as the President of the Returned Services League, the Secretary of the Pensioners' Association, the Civilian Widows' Association, Professor Gruen. They had a look at this matter, and Senator Sir John Carrick said that they came up with two or three proposals. The preferred proposal was to include the family home. Senator Sir John Carrick, with typical modesty, said that because of the Opposition's objections to this, because the Opposition realised it would be so inequitable, the Government caved in and did not include the family home. I remind honourable senators that no assets test which has been proposed by this Government has ever included the family home. The first version did not include the family home, nor should any assets test do so. There must be a recognition of the high home ownership rate in this country. There must be recognition of the rapidly changing and yet irregularly changing values of homes in the community. Senator Sir John Carrick said that to introduce equity into this assets test it was important that the family home was excluded, and he took the credit for it. Blow me down, the next speaker, Senator Walters, said: 'How terribly inequitable this test is because you have excluded the family home. Some family homes are worth $500,000 and some are worth only $40,000, and this is a terribly inequitable thing to do.' That ignores the fact that someone who lives in a home worth $500,000 is not going to be able to pay rates, insurance, maintenance and other things on the pension. Under the present income test, a person in receipt of the full pension who owns a home worth that amount must be manipulating his affairs because he must have other income to survive. Ignoring that fact, Senator Sir John Carrick on one side of the aisle on the far back benches and Senator Walters on the other side showed their mixed up logic by plucking these arguments about equity out of the air. The real inequity in the pension system in this country is the inequity that exists between those people-Senator Haines raised this tonight-who are getting a weekly superannuation payment or a small weekly income and who are excluded from part of the pension and the fringe benefits and their neighbours who have vast asset holdings which they have been been able to manipulate into capital gains, various forms of trusts or whatever and receive the fringe benefits and the full pension, That is one of the real inequities. The other inequity concerns those people in the community who have to rely on the basic pension because they have no other income and who may or may not own their own home. They are in this situation not because they have been profligate but because they have been low income earners, had long periods of unemployment, had some financial crisis during their lives or had long periods of illness. For some reason or other during their lifetime they have not been fortunate enough to accumulate the sorts of assets that Senator Walters seems so desperate here tonight to protect. They are the people who are not getting adequate payment. They are the people who are not getting adequate assistance. If we persist in this country with a pension system which can be manipulated so that those with large asset holdings can get a full pension and full fringe benefits, thus contravening the very principles under which superannuation and other schemes were encouraged in this country, one of the principles being to make the recipients less of a burden on the social security system of this country, if we persist with an arrangement under which so much money is leached out of the system we will eventually run into the sorts of difficulties that many people, including members of the Opposition, have commented upon. I am pleased that the Australian Democrats have indicated that they are not going to support the Opposition in opposing this legislation. I am pleased that the vast majority of people in the community, including Mr Ottley, the President of the Combined Pensioners Association of New South Wales, and others have recognised that what the Government is trying to do is equitable. After prolonged and continuing consultation and discussion with various groups in the community, the Government is trying to do what is supposed to be the aim of parties on both sides of this Parliament, and that is to introduce a pension system which is based on needs, a pension system which is equitable, a pension system which cannot be exploited by some people who have been exploiting it in recent years. I thank honourable senators again and I urge the Senate to support the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.59) —by leave-I move: 1. Page 1, clause 1, line 6, leave out 'and Assets Test'. 2. Pages 8-39, Part III-Pensions Assets Test, leave out the Part. The Opposition's first amendment seeks to change the name of the Bill to the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Bill 1984, thereby excluding the reference to 'and Assets Test'. The second amendment seeks to delete the assets test clauses. This amendment relates to clauses 33 to 64 and includes the Schedule. We indicated in the course of the second reading debate our very strong views on this matter, including our opposition in principle to the Government's assets test proposal. We hold strongly to that point of view and will seek to amend this Bill in order to get rid of the assets test once and for all. Being in the minority on this side of the House we require the support of the Australian Democrats but, having had some indication from the Democrats that they intend to support the Government on this issue, we are looking down the barrel in trying to win. We do, though, as a last ditch stand, call upon the Democrats to change their ways in the dying hours of the debate on this legislation and support the Liberal and National Party Opposition in trying to strike out this damnable clause in the legislation aimed at taking away people's rights of thrift and their ability to save for their own futures. It is with that in mind that we have moved these amendments. In the course of my remarks in the next few minutes I would like briefly to canvass a few of the issues that have come up. Firstly, we have just now had an explanation from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) as to what is the real intention of this legislation. He gave us his point of view but we on this side of the chamber have another one. We see this legislation as the first foot in the door and we believe that a far harsher measure will be introduced sometime after the re-election of the Labor Government if it is successful in the forthcoming election. It is that which people have to have clearly in their minds in the next few weeks and months as they go forward to the election. If this Bill succeeds this assets test will not be that Government's assets test when it comes to the new financial year. All of us on this side of the chamber know that and it is time that the people of Australia were told the truth by this Government. The second point is that this Government has sought to say that the only people who will suffer as a result of the introduction of this legislation are those who hold very large amounts in assets. As the Minister has rightly forecast and has been published in this week's Business Review Weekly, there is some indication that this legislation will lead to a brand new avoidance industry. The Australian Labor Party is spawning such an industry with the introduction of the assets test. It is creating a new avoidance industry which will lead to a whole new field of investment advisory work, which of course members of the Labor Party have decried in the course of the last few hours of this debate. The point is that it is not the really rich who will be the object of this legislation; it will be the battler, the person who has sought to build up relatively modest sums of money-something like $70,000. Senator Zakharov —Ha! Senator MESSNER —Senator Zakharov laughs at that but the fact is that the people who will be caught by this legislation are people like the widow who in her last years sells a house, in Sydney on high value areas along the coast, she realises $100,000 or $150,000, buys an elderly citizen's cottage or whatever and then invests some money. That is the sort of person who will be the subject of this legislation. That is what this Government is on about-attacking the ordinary, modest person in the community. The so-called tall poppies are a figment of the Government's imagination, and it knows it. There are not 40,000 millionaires in this community. That is the number members of the Government claim they will be hitting. There are not 40,000 people who draw pensions and at the same time have assets of more than $1m. It is the average, little person they will hurt. I hope that members of the Government enjoy that experience in the next few months. As has oft been quoted around this place, the new candidate for the seat of Mayo in South Australia, Mr Alexander Downer, who was formerly the Assistant Executive Director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce, has been somehow interpreted as a supporter of this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I suggest that the Minister inquire of Mr Downer about his views on this matter in the not too distant future so that he can stop misrepresenting Mr Downer's position. There is a fundamental question concerning what should be done in the whole area of social security. We covered that adequately in the course of the second reading debate but one issue about which the Government apparently has a fixation is the so-called question of double dipping. The Government sought to introduce a confused series of adjustments and assessments to the system. It first of all sought to introduce an income test for the over 70-year-olds; then it said the real problem with double dipping concerned lump sum superannuation, so a 30 per cent tax was introduced. That has now been followed by an assets test which is entirely contradictory to the second proposal and consequently we have seen higher tax levels introduced for pensioners. All of those things are consistent with the pattern of this Government not having a clue what it is doing in this area. It was for that reason that back in September of last year the Opposition successfully moved, with the support of the Democrats, for a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare of the whole area of income security for the retired. That is probably the most important report yet to be handed down and it will form a basic part of the debate on this vital matter. If the Government had any sense at all it would delay the introduction of any silly measures like this assets test so that it can look forward to a rational, all-party approach to the whole question of retirement income security and prepare its longer term policies based on those philosophical determinations. I know it is too much to expect this Government to do that; it would rather go ahead with its proposals, seeking to create a false impression in the community that it is doing something of importance, while at the same time needlessly hurting the community now, including those who are in need, for some perceived advantage that may be 30 or 40 years down the track. The Government has ignored all the time, in the course of that misguided thinking, what might transpire in the next 30 years. It also has ignored the very basis of its proclaimed policies in altering the direction of economic and industrial policy generally. Those things as well are vital to this whole proposition. I finish by pointing out that, first and foremost, the double dipping proposals that this Government is seeking to attack with this legislation have not been thought through very clearly at all. The Government has not analysed why people arrange their affairs in such a way as to obtain the benefits that the Government claims they do. It has not thought about the terrific incentive that exists by way of the pensioner health benefit card and its attached fringe benefits. A report from the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat indicates that that could be worth at least $100 a week to the average pensioner but the Government fails to take that into account as part of the total incentive available to people to arrange their affairs to get around the system. The Government has no answer to these things but carries on in its usual bumbling fashion, trying to deal with issues that are ill-thought through and which certainly have no basis in logic. For that reason, as well as the many others we have outlined in the course of this debate, the Opposition has moved these amendments which are designed, as I say, to remove the assets test proposal from this Bill. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.10) —I want to identify myself fully with the Opposition's opposition to this Bill. An unusual and special stand is being taken by the Opposition at the Committee stage which many would describe as a money Bill or a Budget Bill. Although this matter falls within a grey area relating to a relatively small amount, it is a matter of principle that should be debated. It goes to the commitment that the Opposition has made that it will not, by blocking a money bill, cause the fall of an elected government in the Senate. That guarantee or principle is, I freely admit, transgressed in this grey area of the definition of this part of the Bill as part of the Government's Budget or in part a money Bill. But because it is a unique act, a special act of the Opposition I want to put on record briefly the reasons why I stand squarely with the Opposition and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of the Australian public in opposing this measure. We do not want the assets test in its present form. Whilst we are committed to repealing this proposed section of the Act on being elected to government-the best remedy to get rid of the assets test, should this Bill be passed tonight, is to elect Liberal-National Party government-we are taking this unusual step tonight because we feel unusually strongly about this measure. It is odious to me. Whilst the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, talks about equity, why can he not see that equity can be described as giving reward to those who have worked hard and contributed to Australia through their life and who ought, without distortion, to gain the reward in the same pension that is payable on retirement to every Australian alike? If a pensioner is able, through good fortune, to have additional income, equity or fairness can be gained through the normal processes of the taxation system. If a person in Australia gets $5,000 as a gift or a bequest from a deceased relative and it is his only income-he has only that $5,000 income-he is not taxed upon it. If he has more income he moves into the 30c in the dollar bracket of tax and, with some appropriate fairness according to the tax threshold, he contributes government revenue by way of tax. Why can that system not apply to age pensioners? They would receive the pension and if they received other income they would move progressively into tax brackets that would take a certain proportion of their income in the same way as that of every other Australian. I put to Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, that this is the way to achieve equity. Finally, why should we penalise in particular the generation of Australians who went through the Depression and World War II and who suffered deprivation in those decades? I include also what I call the immigration generation-the generation of people, principally of the 1950s, who came to Australia with nothing, having been tossed out of their homes, mostly in eastern Europe, and worked hard in this country and built Australia along with the rest of our families. Now, in their old age, in their retirement, they are to be hit by an assets test. I am not concerned only about the formula of this assets test, which Senator Grimes says is a pussy-footing test which will affect only 1,000- odd people. What will happen in the ambush that will be before Australia should an Australian Labor Party government be re-elected at the next election? The Government has the machinery here to turn the assets test into a test that will really hurt. At this Committee stage I say that the Opposition finds great inequity in this attack on the immigration generation, the Depression generation and the World War II generation of Australians. Why should we have an assets test that will lead them to distort their investments further? Why should they distort their investments? Why should those people not be free to maximise their investment gains in the same way as every other Australian? I urge the Australian Democrats to join with us in throwing out this piece of the legislation. All Australians will then say with great cheer: 'We do not have the Labor Party's assets test any more'. The people will not have to wait to re- elect a Liberal government to get rid of it. They can get rid of it tonight if the Democrats join with us in opposing it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.16) —I shall respond briefly to two honourable senators who have just spoken. Senator Teague spoke with some emotion and some histrionics in this place. I think that all honourable senators should read Hansard to see exactly what Senator Teague said. What he said was: 'We do not want the assets test in this form'. He is the first honourable senator on the other side of the chamber who has given some inkling that there may be an assets test in some form from a future Liberal-National Party government. He went on with the usual stuff about those who have worked hard, who suffered during the Depression and who have suffered difficulties throughout their lives. Senator Teague may be surprised to learn this, but I am also concerned about those who have worked hard and who suffered deprivation during the Depression and I am concerned about people who suffered deprivation because of illness, long periods of unemployment, invalidity or whatever but who managed to eke out their lives, bring up their children and make this country what it is-all those expressions which Senator Teague used-and who have retired and are reliant on the age pension. Perhaps they have their own home, perhaps not. The capacity of future governments, be they Labor or Liberal, to give them an adequate level of pension will be diminished if we have an inequitable system that allows those who are more fortunate to arrange the assets that they have been fortunate enough to accumulate so that they will still receive the full pension and full fringe benefits. Senator Teague ended up advocating a means test free pension in this country, a means test free pension which would be taxed as pensions are now taxed. The net cost of that would be $1,200m. The end result would be the situation that exists in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a base rate pension which is means test free and which is inadequate. Inevitably, on top of that there have to be supplementary pensions to assist those who cannot live on that base rate pension and who have a means test applied to them which is far more severe, demeaning and intrusive then anything that is suggested by this Government. Senator Messner, in his contribution, stated the Opposition's objections, but the best argument he could use was the old argument of fear of what will happen in the future. We heard about this being the foot in the door and so on. We heard no argument on principle from him. But Senator Messner did announce that the Opposition, if it came to government, would reverse this Government's stand on the over-70s pension, at a cost of $270m per annum. He said that a Liberal- National Party government would reverse the assets test on the pension, at a cost of $50m in a full year, and that it would reverse the income tax on lump sum superannuation, at a cost of $300m a year. That is $620m alone. If one adds that to all the things that his leader has said a Liberal-National Party government will do, such as scrubbing the wine tax and all those other taxes, where will we be? What does it all add up to? Someone in the media made a calculation the other day that the minimum estimate is $2,000m and the maximum $ 6,000m. The Opposition will cut taxes and all of the revenue measures, increase concessions to industry and at the same time cut the deficit. That sort of nonsense is not believed by the community. The polls demonstrate it is not believed by the community. It is the economics of witchcraft and not many people in the community believe it any more. Senator Messner said that we should solve all these problems by giving everyone the pensioner fringe benefits card. That would solve the whole problem. Senator Messner —I did not say that. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator has said many times that it would largely solve the problem. Senator Messner —I said you have not considered that. Senator GRIMES —Do not worry, we have considered it. We are still considering it . There are a few problems, such as the little problem of the State governments which need to be consulted and which, I assure the honourable senator, would scream blue murder if we add on to them the extra burden of those fringe benefit cards. The key falsehood and hypocrisy in Senator Messner's argument is that he has been in this place for a long time. The present Opposition was in government from 1975 to 1983 and it was in government before that for 23 years. I cannot remember Senator Messner ever raising a peep about giving everyone the fringe benefits card. In all those years, when Senator Chaney and others were saying: ' We have a difficulty here because people are able to manipulate their assets and get the full fringe benefits when they should not and therefore other people are not getting sufficient pensions', we never heard any of these arguments from anyone who is now in the Opposition, and then in government. We certainly did not hear them from Senator Messner. I am glad that what he is saying now indicates that at least he is thinking about the problem. I wish he would take a leaf out of Mr Elliott's book, face the problem and recognise that sometimes governments have to do unpalatable things, as this Government has done and will continue to do. Finally, Senator Messner told us that Mr Alexander Downer has had a sudden conversion since 9 June 1984. I suppose that sudden conversion has something to do with the fact that he has been preselected as a Liberal candidate. If Mr Downer said things that he did not believe at the time, I am sorry for him. But Mr Downer was reported accurately. He actually put out the 'Press statement' from which I quoted. Mr Downer may not have believed it, but he gave every indication on the television interviews that I saw that he did believe it very firmly. If he did not believe it, he will certainly be a formidable opponent in the other place because he must be one of the best actors I have ever seen on television in this country. But Mr Downer, like the rest of us, will be reported on what he says, not what he meant to say. I am sure Mr Downer will have his statement quoted back to him in the future. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.23) —I ask one brief question of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Can he tell us when the forms for the inquisition on the assets test will go out to pensioners? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.23) —I think that question is absolutely typical of what I and others have been talking about in this place. It ranks with the sort of statements by Senator Townley about storm troopers, et cetera. However, I will ignore that part of the question. We expect that the first forms and letters, if this legislation goes through, will be out in the first week in November. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Messner's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator Elstob) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. Evans, Jack Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Sibraa, K. W. Georges, G. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Haines, J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Colston, M. A. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Gietzelt, A. T. MacGibbon, D. J. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.31) —There are four matters that I wish to refer to in the adjournment debate tonight. First, in what might be regarded as a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I refer to Mr Willis's Press statement of 28 August about the community employment program for 1984-85. In that he deals with the allocation to the various States and Territories and he also refers to the funds which are to be spent in relation to Commonwealth programs in particular. The Minister indicates that $5.6m is to be allocated to the community employment program during the current financial year. The papers tabled by the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) on Budget night indicated that $1,726 ,000 was to be spent in the Australian Capital Territory. I would like to know how the remaining $3.9m is to be spent through the Commonwealth and who makes the decision as to which Commonwealth programs receive community employment program moneys. I would also like to know how many jobs there have been in the period of the community employment program to date, what was the average length of time of them and what was the average amount spent per job. I think that information would be useful and we should know it. If possible, I want to know how many people employed in the Commonwealth sector went on to obtain permanent employment. The next matter I wish to raise-the office of aged care-was referred to earlier tonight. The setting up of that office was an election promise. There have been two elections since and I still see no evidence of funding for it. I regard it as an important office. There are many aspects of the aged, of the recently retired and the people who are in the category of the frail aged, that need to be looked into to see that there is not a duplication of programs. I asked a question during consideration of the Supplementary Estimates in May as to why the office had not been established. I was told that the Government had not sorted out exactly where the office would belong. It was suggested that it would belong either to the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security. I suggest that neither is suitable. One implies that all the aged are in ill health and need care in that area, and certainly some do. The other implies that all aged are welfare cases and in the social security system, and certainly many of them are. But I think to place the office within either the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security fails to address the real benefit of an office of aged care and what it can and should be doing. In any event, let us get it under way and let it be of benefit to the community. It was an election promise and I cannot see any reason for it not yet to have come into being. I wish also to raise a matter that I mentioned on 24 August. I have since written to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) asking whether she will make available the report of the Australian Captial Territory Consultative Committee on Education under Self-Government. It is an important document and it is very relevant to the future of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. In fact the future of education is perhaps the most important aspect that we are thinking about. I understand the Minister has had the report for some time. I would like to know when it will be made public and what her reasons are for not making it public. I ask that she give the matter her earliest attention. The last matter that I wish to refer to is in the area of the Attorney-General' s Department and relates to a Mr Robert Walter Foster, who stood trial in the Australian Capital Territory in October last year on eight charges of obtaining a valuable security by false pretences. The trial was aborted and he then stood trial again. In between the two trials his solicitor put a proposition to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that the charges should not proceed, that the evidence in the first trial indicated that there was not sufficient evidence to convict him. A long and reasoned argument, with many quotations from the evidence, was put to the Attorney. Notwithstanding this, the Attorney elected to proceed with the trial. That took place, and Mr Foster was acquitted by the Supreme Court of the Australian Captial Territory on 4 June 1984. I would be interested to know the Attorney's reasons or the advice that he was given that indicated that it was appropriate to proceed with the second trial, in view of the information that has been given to me. On 4 June the Commonwealth was ordered to pay $4,000 towards Mr Foster's costs. Mr Foster has incurred a total of over $22,000 in costs, $15,000 of which he borrowed by way of a mortgage on his house and the rest privately. He has still not received the $4, 000 that the Commonwealth was ordered to pay. I think that is inexcusable. I have suggested to the Attorney that he should follow his own advice and make a payment of costs to Mr Foster considerably in excess of the amount that was ordered. The Attorney has directed his prosecuting counsel in the Australian Capital Territory to ask that anyone who so much as dares to defend a case and loses be asked to pay the costs. He seems to think that that in no way is a denial of civil liberties and that he is entitled to proceed in that instance. Maybe he is, but if that is the case why should not the Attorney pay the costs of Mr Foster which I have indicated are considerable. I have not had a reply or even an acknowledgment to my letter that I wrote on 9 August. It may be a matter of no consequence to the Attorney but it is a matter of great importance to Mr Foster. He owes a considerable amount of money. I think it is questionable whether the costs of the second trial should have been incurred. I find it inexcusable that the Commonwealth has not met its commitment to him and paid that money. In view of the Attorney's attitude towards claiming costs from persons who are convicted, having defended proceedings, he should pay the costs in the circumstances that I have outlined. I would like to go through all the circumstances-I have information available to me in relation to what I would challenge as a good decision to proceed with the second trial-but I shall not do so. The Attorney has the letter dated 19 October 1983. In any event I think he ought to have another look at the matter and his decision to proceed with the second trial. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(10.39) —I raise in the adjournment debate a subject that has created a lot of concern in South Australia which could well be reflected in other parts of Australia; namely, rest homes. The Adelaide News on Friday carried an article dealing with rest home patients. Eleven rest homes have threatened to shut their doors. The article stated: Eleven of Adelaide's private rest homes today threatened to close their doors and 'unload' more than 300 patients on to the city's public hospitals. They have told the Federal Government they need financial assistance within a fortnight or they will close permanently. The ultimatum was not a bluff, the SA Rest Homes Association president, Mrs S. Stoppel, warned today. Rest home proprietors will meet the SA Council of the Ageing on Monday to give notice of the decision. This involves the accommodation which is provided for our older retired citizens who enjoy reasonable health and who seek rest home beds for one of two main reasons: Firstly, because they are unwilling to live alone or with their wives or husbands as they are unable to deal with the maintenance of house and garden, or cannot afford to have this done for them; and secondly, because their families are not prepared to look after them. In South Australia this type of accommodation has reached a crisis point, as I have indicated. Should these 11 homes be forced to close it will create tremendous problems for the 300 inhabitants involved. These homes are experiencing financial stress because they are feeding and caring for their clients all day every day for about $13 a day. These rest homes perform a most valuable service to the community as they also show added interest in the welfare of their guests by ensuring that they have clean, comfortable beds and good meals and that they take medication, if it is required, at the times prescribed. In addition, the proprietors and their staff assist in personal shopping requirements and ensure that healthy exercise is taken by the elderly people who inhabit those institutions. They encourage the walks and outings that are necessary to provide a healthy environment and to make life as interesting as possible. Unfortunately, a significant number of these people develop senile dementia, sometimes a year or so after their admission. Senile dementia is a very difficult thing to determine. It is an insidious disorder that involves elderly people. I have a paper here that describes senile dementia, and I seek leave for this document to be incorporated in Hansard. It is an extract from the McMillan Guide to Family Health, the Editor-in-Chief of which is Dr Tony Smith, MA, BM, BCH. The paper is very interesting because, among other things, it describes dementia as a disorder in which a formerly normal brain ceases to function normally and the sufferer becomes forgetful, confused and out of touch. Unfortunately, the first symptoms are not readily recognised. A patient who is admitted to a rest home can quite easily be in the early stages of dementia and develop this problem progressively over the year or so in which he or she is resident in the rest home. They get to a stage where they need to be admitted to a nursing home for proper, qualified nursing care or to the geriatric ward of a hospital such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital or other public hospital that is competent to treat them. Patients sometimes become incontinent and require appropriate nursing care. Such care is quite frequently beyond the training and capabilities of rest home staff. Frequently problems have arisen whereby rest home proprietors have had to recommend that such people who are resident in their homes be transferred either to a public hospital institution such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital or other public hospitals in South Australia or to a private nursing home with qualified staff who can care adequately for them. However, when they are taken to the Royal Adelaide Hospital or to the appropriate nursing home equipped to deal with them, accommodation cannot be provided because sufficient beds are not available . From what I have been told by Mrs Stoppel, the President of the South Australian Rest Homes Association, it seems that some nursing homes have beds that are occupied by people who do not require nursing care but who could be accommodated in rest homes, or guest houses, as they could be termed. It has been suggested to me that up to 20 per cent of these nursing home beds are occupied by people in this category who could otherwise find accommodation in rest homes. It is a serious matter that ought to be recognised and investigated. In addition, the South Australian Rest Homes Association claims that a subsidy of $4 a day per patient is required to enable them to carry on their business and provide these services. If these private institutions do not obtain Commonwealth assistance it could result in their closure. If patients had to be accommodated in public institutions it would cost the Commonwealth $200 a day in the Royal Adelaide Hospital, for example. In order to save time, I have an article that can be incorporated in Hansard, together with the document to which I referred dealing with senile dementia. I seek leave to have these documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- SENILE DEMENTIA Dementia is a disorder in which a formerly normal brain ceases to function normally and the sufferer becomes forgetful, confused, and out of touch with the real world. The condition is very rare among people under 65 (see Pre-senile dementia, p.293). Senile dementia (dementia affecting the elderly), on the other hand is common. The deterioration of the mind is due sometimes to the progressive wasting of irreplaceable brain cells; sometimes-and when this happens, there is a greater possibility of any treatment being successful-to gradual narrowing and hardening of the arteries that carry blood to the brain ( see Arteriosclerosis, (p.404).) Senile dementia, which may develop over several years, is by definition progressive and incurable. Do not assume, however, that signs of confusion or impaired intellectual capacity in someone over 65 are always due to senility. There may be an underlying-and treatable-cause. For example, chest or urinary tract infections, strokes, heart attacks, and hypothermia can result in mental confusion; and so can low blood-sugar level, hypoglycaemia, or the use of types of drug. The confusion, agitation, and drowsiness resulting from any such underlying condition are different from the symptoms of senile dementia in two respects: they tend to develop rapidly over the course of a day or two, and they are likely to clear up with appropriate treatment of the basic trouble. In some cases, when senile dementia is developing, the condition may seem worse than it is because of the problems with eyesight and hearing that already exist. Moreover, actual dementia is sometimes caused by long-standing abuse of alcohol or drugs or by vitamin deficiency, hypothyroidism, syphilis, or brain trouble such as a tumor or subdural haemorrhage. And very often the mental signs of '' senility'' lessen when any such condition is treated. An additional common problem in the elderly is depressive illness (see Depression, p.297), which sometimes mimics the symptoms of dementia. These symptoms are unfortunately often attributed to dementia when they may be caused by treatable depression. The following paragraphs deal exclusively with true senile dementia, which has a slow, insidious onset and which is not caused by an underlying, treatable disorder. Many elderly people in an early stage of the condition realize that they are beginning to lose their mental grip, but they can do little to arrest its progress. The advice in this article is therefore directed to close relatives and friends rather than to the sufferers themselves. What are the symptoms The first symptom is a gradual loss of memory, particularly of recent events. You will begin to notice that the elderly person cannot remember what has happened a few hours (or even minutes) earlier, although he or she can recall happenings of many years ago. This is a classic symptom of an old memory and does not necessarily mean that dementia will progress, though it can do. As weeks and months pass, powers of reasoning and understanding may dwindle, and there may also be a loss of interest to all familar pursuits, even in such simple activities as watching television or seeking news of friends. Eventually there may be a deterioration of personality. Senile dementia often culminates in emotional and physical instability. Some sufferers tend to swing between moods of apathetic withdrawal and overactive aggressiveness, and they may behave in uninhibited and anti-social ways. Table manners deteriorate; personal cleanliness is neglected; and usual politeness disappears. Sometimes sufferers may even become violent if impulsive behaviour is frustrated. A few old people lose their sexual inhibitions, too, and this can lead to embarrassing physical approaches to young persons of either sex. Any or all such symptons lead slowly but progressively towards decay of intellect and emotion. How common is the problem The older the age group, the greater the likelihood of senile dementia. Probably about 1 person in 10 over the age of 65 has the condition, but the figures rise to 1 in 5 over the age of 80. This means that, in the population at large, about 1 family in every 10 includes at least one elderly member suffering from senile dementia. What are the risks? You are taking risks, whenever you leave demented old people alone or permit them to continue living alone after they have progressed beyond an early stage of senitity. Because of forgetfulness and inability to concentrate, there is a constant danger of accidental misuse of fire, gas, and kitchen tools. Combined with possible physical disabilities such as deafness or impaired vision, mental confusion makes it difficult for sufferers to take medicines as prescribed, to cross streets in safety, or even to use the bathroom. Without supervision they are apt to eat badly and to neglect personal hygiene. The results can be distressing, especially if-as often happens they begin to suffer from incontinence (p. 718), malnutrition, or a disease caused by lack of vitamins ( see vitamins, p. 494). If a relative of yours in the early stages of senility is still about without companionship, be sure that he or she always carries some mark of identification-for example, a bracelet inscribed with name and address or, at the very least, a piece of paper carrying your own address and telephone number. What should be done? If you suspect that an elderly relative or close friend is beginning to suffer from dementia, you should gently persuade (or take) him or her to see a doctor, preferably the family doctor, who will be familiar with the person's history and may already have suspected signs of the condition. The doctor may refer you to a geriatrician, if necessary. After making a physical examination and carrying out tests of memory and reasoning power, the doctor will probably search for the symptoms of a possible underlying disease-the pallor of vitamin B12 deficiency, for example-that might be causing mental deterioration. If loss of memory or confusion has developed with extreme rapidity, the doctor will be unwilling to make a firm diagnosis of senile dementia without further tests. If, however, you have noticed a slow deterioration, and if the sufferer is well past 65, and there seems to be no good reason for him or her to be suffering from depression, your suspicion is likely to be confirmed. What is the treatment? Although no medical cure is possible, you doctor will undoubtedly help you decide what to do next. Some practical help can be given to both the old person and those who care for him or her. In the early stages of senility, when many old people are still able to live alone their friends can help by organising memory aids such as lists and routines, and by making sure that adequate food and warmth are provided. There are risks to this procedure (see 'What are the risks?' above); but unless they have become very confused, most of the elderly do better in familiar-even if muddled-surroundings than in homes for the aged. Visits by an efficient, sympathetic health visitor or district nurse, along with regular attention from a service such as Home Help or Meals on Wheels, will help many people to maintain some degree of independence in spite of increasing senility. If you feel responsible for the well-being of a senile relative, you should take as much advantage of community sevices as you can. In many places, for instance, there are day-care centres where old people are looked after for several hours, provided with lunch, and given some kind of occupational therapy (see Community health care, p. 743). Your doctor may also be able to arrange for your relative to be admitted to hospital or a home for the elderly (see the box below) for brief periods so that you can have an occasional holiday. And the doctor can advise you how to cope with such specific problems as incontinence. For information on home-nursing techniques see the section entitled Caring for the sick at home on p. 754. What are the long-term prospects? Eventually your aged relative may well require the skilled and constant care that are available only in long-stay hospitals or homes. If the doctor strongly recommends this form of care, you will be doing the old person the best possible service by accepting the recommendation. Eleven rest homes threaten to shut Eleven of Adelaide's private rest homes today threatened to close their doors and ''unload'' more than 30 patients on to the city's public hospitals. They have told the Federal Government they need financial assistance within a fortnight or they will close permanently. The ultimatum was not a bluff, the SA Rest Homes Association president, Mrs S. Stoppel, warned today. Rest home proprietors will meet the SA Council of the Ageing on Monday to give notice of the decision. If they go ahead with the plan, up to 100 staff will be retrenched. Mrs Stoppel said homes no longer could operate without Federal or State aid. Patients were being fed, clothed and cared for round-the-clock for only $13 a day. Rest homes want the Commonwealth to provide $4 a day subsidy for each patient. Mrs Stoppel said proprietors were prepared to ''shut for good'' if the Government refused. Tragedy She said each would shut simultaneously on the same date-yet to be made public. ''We cannot continue under the present conditions,'' she said. State Liberal MLC, Dr Ritson, who has been lobbying for the association, said it would be a tragedy if the rest homes closed. But they could not continue to function as de facto nursing homes without appropriate subsidies. The Opposition Leader, Mr Olsen, said the homes were small businesses providing a service for a real need and their funding request deserved urgent attention. The Premier, Mr Bannon, said he was ''seriously concerned.'' ''I have referred the matter to the Health Commission to see what can be done,' ' he said. Mrs Stoppel said: ''If the Commonwealth feels it can't help us with a subsidy of $4 a day, its going to have to find $200 a day to cope with these people in public institutions.'' Proprietors were angry that many of their patients qualified for nursing home care and a subsidy of $43 a day. But because of an acute shortage of nursing beds, they could not transfer them and continued to care for them with no Government aid. Mrs Stoppel warned the Government not to see the threat as bluff. ''The only thing worrying us is the trauma inflicted on residents and staff.'' The closure ultimatum has been made to the Health Minister, Dr Blewett, and the Social Security Minister, Senator Grimes. These may close Mrs Stoppel named the rest homes which would close as: Hillview, Adelaide St, Magill. St Bernard's, Penfold Rd, Magill. Argyle, Charles St, Prospect. Emerald, Prospect. Catherine Love, Prospect Rd, Prospect. Sunnydale, Military Rd, Semaphore. Cobham, Gordon Tce, Morphettville. Glenelg, Byron St, Glenelg. Brougham, Brougham Place, North Adelaide. Seacliff, Kauri Pde, Seacliff. Sumeera, Salisbury Hwy, Parafield Gardens. Senator JESSOP —I thank the Senate. I have raised the matter with the Government through the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). It seems that these Ministers should recognise the need to carry out an urgent inquiry into this most serious matter. The Premier of South Australia has recognised the problem and is prepared to co-operate. I have had a series of letters from the Minister for Social Security and his colleague the Minister for Health and I am grateful for their replies to my representations on behalf of the Rest Homes Association of South Australia. I seek leave to have those letters incorporated in Hansard, for the information of the Senate. The PRESIDENT —I assume that the normal conditions in regard to incorporation have been met? Senator JESSOP —The Minister has seen my letters and he knows the replies. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- 8th November, 1983 The Hon. Neal Blewett, M.P. Minister for Health, Parliament House, CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 My dear Minister, My State colleague, Mr. J. Burdett, MLC, has brought to my attention the plight of Rest Homes in this State. The Rest Homes Association, C/- Employers' Federation Inc., 46 Fullarton Road, Norwood, S.A.5069, had raised this matter with him, and as it concerns a Federal issue, I am taking it up on their behalf. The Association feels it is being discriminated against in that funding is not available to Rest Homes which provide exactly the same service as community and church based organisations. The Association receives payments out of the pensions of residents, and this does not go far enough to operate on a viable basis. They do provide a service for people who cannot get appropriate care through any other source. They have pointed out that some payment is available, in the form of subsidies, to such persons when cared for in their own homes, such as electricity reductions, etc. however, not even this small amount of assistance is provided to people because they choose to live in a private rest home. The total number of persons cared for in rest homes is not available to me, and I believe there are about 26 rest homes in the State, half of which belong to the Rest Homes Association. It will be necessary in the near future for hospitals, nursing homes and rest homes to provide adequate fire protection equipment to keep in line with the new requirements, and I am advised the rest homes will suffer severe financial difficulty in finding the capital outlay to comply with these requirements. I know of one Matron at least who works for no wage at all, and has used her own savings to pay bills rather than tell her residents that she can't afford to maintain the home, and they must leave. You can imagine the suffering which would be caused to these old people if they were told they must leave their rest homes because the owners could no longer afford to maintain them, yet the situation is rapidly threatening. And, of course, there would be the potential loss of many nursing jobs if rest homes were forced to close. I am advised that staff are now working up to 16 hours a day, for a very minimal wage, as the homes cannot afford to employ any more staff, and this is causing intolerable strain on these dedicated people. I therefore request your most sympathetic consideration to amending the provisons which preclude the payment of funds to private nursing homes in order to remove the discrimination which apparently exists. Yours sincerely, DONALD S. JESSOP Senator for South Australia December 1, 1983 Hon. Neal Blewett, MP, Minister for Health, Parliament House, Canberra A.C.T. 2600 My dear Minister, You will recall that I wrote to you on 8 November, 1983, on behalf of the Rest Homes Association of South Australia, concerning Government funding for Rest Homes. I am enclosing a copy of further information I have received from Matron Shirley Stoppel in support of their submission for funding. Matron Stoppel has detailed a number of instances for your consideration and I look forward to your further comments on this important matter. Yours sincerely, DONALD S. JESSOP Senator for South Australia Matron Shirley Stoppel, Hillview Rest Home, 4 Adelaide Street, LACIL S.A. 5072 19th November, 1983 Parliament House, Canberra To Whom it may Concern, On behalf of the Rest Home Association of South Australia, it is with great concern and confusion I write this letter, there are many questions we need answered. Firstly, why are the so called Non-Profit Organisations with back up Voluntary Assistance paid personal care subsidies on top ot the pension and expected only to break even whilst at the same time, Private Rest Homes with absolutely no assistance or concessions expected not only to maintain a standard of care with fees below the pension but be placed in the category of Profit Making Concern. Let me say we believe voluntary organisations need subsidy, but so do we. It is gross discrimination not only to Managers of Rest Homes but even more so to the residents who have equal rights to the same standards of care. Rest Homes in S.A. deal with in general with many very difficult residents, many times rejected by society and would certainly not pass the test for entry into selective Voluntary Organisation, Hostels etc. Many times rejected for entry into Nursing Homes for behavioral problems. A great number of people residing in Rest Homes are not quite little old ladies sitting and knitting but are Brain Damaged, Alcoholics, Senile Dementias, Epileptics, Diabetics, War Veterans with behavioral problems, Intellectually Retarted Geriatrics and also Nursing Home cases that we are unable to place simply because of my next point. Criteria for Admission to Nursing Homes-For Extensive Care in Nursing Homes. Example-Almost Blindman, periodically incontinent of bowel and bladder, able to walk with aid of a stick. Answer-Unacceptable because able to walk, (must be chair or bedfast.) Please tell me what we are supposed to do with these people. We are not registered for Nursing Home Patients. Do we break their legs to make them eligible. Do we get up at night to nurse them for nothing or do we make them fend for themselves as best they can. Some Private Nursing Homes request Extensive Care only, this reduces the amount of beds available for ordinary care subsidy. This is reduced even further when you take into consideration that many residents in Rest Homes can afford pension only, so many Nursing Homes are out of the question if asking higher than pension so we virtually really come back to Voluntary Organisation, who many times have Hostels attached, who have top priority on vacant Nursing Home beds. Who will Care for these People? Do we send them to Acute Hospital? If sent back do we refuse to re-admit. That would mean they would spend the rest of their lives in an ambulance. Rest Homes are a very necessary link in the chain of Human Care for Aged and Disabled, they are and can be tuned to many areas of care and if granted some form of financial assistance would surely slow down the over increasing need for expensive Nursing Home beds and eventually save Government, thousands of dollars . Members of our Association have been asked by Politicians why we bother to do this kind of work? So I will answer this on their behalf, the same as we answered these Politicians. (A) We happen to think the Human Race is the most importance thing on this earth and there are still people who do care. However these politicians have been asked to back their statements with an alternative and of course have been unable to come up with an answer. We request urgent consideration for Personal Care Subsidy, you cannot tell Private Rest Homes to maintain a standard of care and make a profit and at the same time give Subsidy to so called Non-Profit Organisations, with their back-up of voluntary assistance to only break even it is ridiculous. We would welcome your visit to our Homes at any time. Thank you MATRON S. STOPPEL on behalf of the Rest Homes Association of S.A. MINISTER FOR HEALTH Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Jessop, I refer to your personal representations on behalf of the Rest Homes Association, c/- Employers' Federation Inc., 46 Fullarton Road, Norwood, S.A. 5069 referred to you by the Hon. J. Burdett, M.L.C., concerning funding for rest homes. I would like to say initially that I recognise that rest homes can play an important role in the care of the frail aged. Programs relating to residential care for aged people have been, over a number of years, administered by the Commonwealth Government both within my Department and within the Department of Social Security. My Department administers programs of financial assistance for nursing homes, while the Department of Social Security administers programs relating to hostels. State Government health and welfare agencies are also involved in these areas. This has resulted in gaps, inequities and a lack of co-ordination and integration in programs for the aged. This Government's policies incorporate an integrated plan for the care of the aged, based on a community care program and a residential care program. In respect of residential care, our intention is to moderate growth in the nursing home sector, and to provide a more equitable geographic distribution of nursing home beds while increasing the availability of hostel accommodation. This year the Government's main initiative in the health area has been to introduce Medicare, although it has also taken some initiatives in the aged care area which will assist in the development and the implementation of its aged care policies. I anticipate that in formulating future Budgets it will be giving consideration to taking further steps to introduce its aged care policies. Under the current arrangements I see rest Homes as being more akin to hostels than to nursing homes. Consequently, consideration of any assistance that might be provided to them in the short term is a matter for my colleague Senator Grimes. Accordingly, I have forwarded a copy of your representations to him for his consideration. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Yours sincerely, NEAL BLEWETT Minister for Health Senator D. S. Jessop, Commonwealth Parliament Offices 4 January 1984 MINISTER FOR HEALTH Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Jessop, I refer to your personal representations on behalf of Matron Stoppel of the Rest Homes Association of South Australia, concering the funding for rest homes. In my previous letter to you of 4 January 1984 on this subject I indicated that the Government had taken some initiatives in the aged care area and that in formulating future Budgets it will be giving consideration to taking further steps to initiate its aged care policies. I also pointed out that because of their similarity to hostels, consideration of any assistance that might be provided to rest homes in the short term is a matter for my colleague, Senator the Hon. Don Grimes, Minister for Social Security. Matron Stoppel has requested urgent consideration of matters related to the personal care subsidy. This subsidy is also adminisitered under the Social Security portfolio. Accordingly, I have also forwarded your further representations to Senator Grimes for his consideration. Yours sincerely, NEAL BLEWETT Minister for Health Senator D. S. Jessop, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 29 February 1984 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Minister for Social Security Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Jessop The Minister for Health, the Hon. Neal Blewett has forwarded to me your letter of 8 November 1983. In it, you expressed concern about the lack of financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government for rest home in South Australia. You make reference to requirements such as fire protection equipment in rest homes. Regulations concerning operational standards in rest homes are not the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, but are standards set up by the State Government under the State Health Act 1974 for implementation by the Central Board of Health. The Commonwealth Government provides subsidy to eligible non-profit organisations to assist them to provide accommodation and care for the aged or disabled members of the community requiring these services. No subsidies are available for profit making enterprises under the existing legislation. However, the Commonwealth Government is concerned about issues such as the financial viability of rest homes, and is currently undertaking a study into this and other aspects of rest home operations in South Australia. It is proposed to compare the information obtained from the survey with data on subsidised hostels. Further action will be considered after completion of the study and comparative analysis. Yours Sincerely, (DON GRIMES) Senator the Hon. D. S. Jessop Commonwealth Parliament Offices 1 King William Street, Adelaide, S.A. 5000 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Minister for Social Security Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Jessop The Minister for Health, the Hon. Neal Blewett MP, has forwarded me your letter of 1 December 1983. With it, you enclosed a letter from Matron Shirley Stoppel providing information in suport of the request from the Rest Homes Associaion of South Australia for Commonwealth financial assistance. My department has had extensive discussions with Matron Stoppel and the Association about the issues raised. The legislative basis for the recurrent funding of aged hostel accommodation is the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act ( 1954). Section 2 of that Act restricts the payment of either capital or recurrent subsidy to facilities operating on a not-for-profit basis. Hence, financial assistance in the form of Hostel or Personal Care subsidies is not available to private hostels operating for profit, such as rest homes. Careful consideration needs to be given to both the cost and policy implications of extending subsidies to orginisations operating hostels for profit. The study of private hostels being undertaken by my department, to which I alluded in my letter to you of 24 January 1984, will assist in consideration of this issue. Yours Sincerely, (DON GRIMES) Senator D. S. Jessop Commonwealth Parliament Offices 1 King William Street Adelaide 5000 Senator JESSOP —I know that the Minister is sympathetic and recognises that there is a problem. I know that the Government recognises that there is a problem. I appreciate the response I have had from the Minister. I put the proposition to the Minister that it would be very helpful in South Australia, particularly as the situation has reached crisis point, for the Federal Government to co-operate with the State Government and appoint a medical specialist trained in geriatric treatment, perhaps a senior matron experienced in geriatric nursing, a representative of the rest homes and the nursing homes association, representatives of the private nursing homes in South Australia, and the South Australian Health Comission, to inquire into this problem. I suggest as a starting point that it would perhaps be advisable to investigate the rest homes that are nominated in the article to which I referred and which I have had incorporated in Hansard. I suggest also that it would be helpful if the Commonwealth Government and the State Government in South Australia, as a pilot exercise, examined a cross-section of private nursing homes to establish the claims that up to 20 per cent of their patients could quite properly be accommodated in rest homes. This would alleviate the problem and make beds available so that patients who develop the conditions I have described, including senile dementia, could be accommodated and treated with expert nursing and medical care. I think it is a serious problem. I know that the Minister recognises this. I believe he would recognise the significance and importance of the inquiry that I have suggested. I hope that he will co-operate with the State Government in examining the problem as I have outlined it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.50) —First of all, I am sorry that I was unable to be here to listen to what Senator Reid said tonight but I can assure her I will have a look at Hansard tomorrow and will get replies to all the matters she raised. I am more familiar, as Senator Jessop has said, with the problems that he has raised and with those that the South Australian Rest Homes Association has raised with him and through the Press. Let me say first of all, and I think it is fair for me to say, that no Commonwealth government of any persuasion has ever had a role in subsidising rest homes of this type. It is not clear to me or to my colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) why these homes now find themselves in financial difficulties to the extent that they claim they will have to close down in a fortnight. In fact they have never received Commonwealth subsidies in the past and Commonwealth legislation does not provide for us to fund profit-making rest homes in the way that Senator Jessop and the rest homes would like. There may be, as Senator Jessop has said, something in what they say about the level of dependence of their patients having changed in recent years, but at the moment we have no evidence of this, although a Senate inquiry into this sort of thing is under way at the moment. It is also worth pointing out that to the extent that there are any controls over rest homes, those controls are imposed by State governments, not the Commonwealth Government. If we funded these rest homes to the extent that some people seem to claim they should be funded, as have the articles in the Adelaide News, the cost in South Australia would be something like $3m a year. We do not know the cost Australia-wide because we do not know the extent to which these institutions exist. It is worth while pointing out that funding by the Commonwealth for nursing homes, which is the most expensive form of care for the aged, and funding for hostels, carries with it the provision of certain services and conditions. The staffing costs at the moment are about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of nursing home expenditure. Where nursing home benefits are paid, in South Australia, for instance, such homes are expected to employ staff of the order of one nurse for each six patients during the day, one nurse for each eight patients in the afternoon and one nurse for each 15 patients at night. Those provisions vary throughout the States but they are roughly the same as that. If the rest homes that Senator Jessop mentioned were to be funded, they would have to look at their staffing ratios. They would also have to look at the minimum accommodation standards which are provided and which are regulated by State governments. Heaven knows what the capital cost of those changes would be. Senator Jessop —That is quite right, but I hope you will address the other point . Senator GRIMES —I am coming to that. Senator Jessop pointed out that it is believed by the rest home proprietors that something like 20 per cent, I think he said, of nursing home patients should not be nursing home patients and should be in other forms of accommodation. I certainly would accept that figure. In fact I think it is a very conservative figure. It is estimated in some States that some 25 per cent to 30 per cent or even more of the people in nursing homes should not be there. That is why the present Government has introduced the new age care package. We want to introduce geriatric assessment. We want greater control over the people who are going into nursing homes. We want to introduce a system whereby we encourage people to stay in their own homes. When they cannot do that we hope to encourage them to go into hostels or independent type accommodation. Only when necessary should they go into nursing homes. We accept that. We have moved to do something about it. That is what the package in the present Budget is all about. Quite suddenly we find that the profit-making rest homes in South Australia are coming along and saying: 'Look, we want to be in this. If we are not in this we will have to close down in a fortnight'. I suggest that is not the way we or any government could proceed. An inquiry is already under way into the problems of the rest homes. The Department of Health, with the assistance of the South Australian Government, is looking at this problem. It has been looking at it in recent times. As I said, one of the Senate committees is looking at it. We have to analyse the results of those inquiries. At the moment South Australia has a higher than average number of nursing home beds and a higher number of hostel beds available per thousand aged people in the community. To expect us suddenly to produce the sort of moneys that Senator Jessop is talking about is a bit much. Senator Jessop —I want the Minister, if he does not mind, to clear my concern about what happens to the people that these rest homes cannot deal with because they are incapable of doing so. That is the crux of my argument. What will we do with them? Senator GRIMES —That is the crux of the problem and the crux of geriatric care throughout the community. If the honourable senator were to look at the approvals we have granted in recent times and at the package which is in the Budget which is going through Parliament at the moment he would find that they are problems we are addressing at the moment. I do not believe that we should suddenly, for the first time-the honourable senator should remember that the Commonwealth has been involved in aged persons' accommodation for a long time- move in a big way at a fortnight's notice into funding profit-making rest homes in this way. Of course we are concerned about the matter. It is the result of accumulated problems we have had over the years in the area of geriatric care in this country. However, I will look at the documents that he has had incorporated in Hansard tonight, apart from the letters I wrote to the honourable senator, and I will get a more detailed answer after consultation with my colleague the Minister for Health. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.57 p.m. The following paper was presented: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination 1984 No. 3. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 913) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 29 May: (1) Are invalidity retirements from the Public Service now dealt with under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act (CERR Act). (2) Are special provisions made for invalidity retirements to be dealt with expeditiously, or are the processes under the CERR Act applied without distinction to officers being considered for retirement on health grounds. (3) Is the Prime Minister aware that, since the retirement process takes so long, officers being retired for health reasons often have to apply for social security sickness benefits until their severance allowances are received. (4) Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure prompt attention is given to cases where officers are being retired for health reasons. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The CE (RR) Act and the CE (RR) Act Handbook contain specific provisions for the management of invalidity cases. These provisions require, under certain circumstances, medical examination of an employee to determine fitness for current duties, followed by redeployment action where necessary. The Act does provide a means whereby employees who are clearly unfit for further duty can be retired without the Public Service Board exploring redeployment opportunities. The Board has instructed departments to handle potential invalidity retirement cases as quickly as possible. (3) In cases where the medical evidence of an employee's unfitness for duty is undisputed and the nature of the illness precludes redeployment as an option, the retirement process does not normally take long. However, where differences of medical opinion arise over an employee's fitness for duty, or the assembled medical and other evidence does not clearly indicate that retirement is warranted, or the employee disputes the recommendation of the Department of Health, the process may take some time. Where an employee's medical condition is such that redeployment would be appropriate, the employee is expected to remain on useful duties normally in his or her department until a suitable position can be found. Social Security sickness benefits are available to employees who exhaust their sick leave credits. Should such an employee subsequently be retired on invalidity grounds there is a provision in the Act enabling the retirement to be backdated with the employee's agreement. This provision normally enables the retired employee to receive pension benefits from the date paid sick leave credits were exhausted. (4) Following a report from the working group on the management-initiated retirement aspects of the CE (RR) Act, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Industrial Matters has asked the Board to implement further procedures to ensure that invalidity retirement cases are handled as quickly as possible. (Question No. 933) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, upon notice, on 5 June 1984: (1) What plans does the Government have to upgrade radar installations in the Gulf of Carpentaria region, having in mind the problems experienced in the north during Cyclone Kathy: (a) the Minister for Science and Technology reported statements that the Bureau of Meteorology is still using obsolete weather radar equipment such as valves (some of which date back to 1943); (b) that this can be blamed on the lack of funding for weather research stations; and (c) the Minister's answers to my question on notice No. 875 (see Hansard, 29 May 1984, p . 2103) in which he said better communication links were needed in remote areas. (2) What plans does the Government have to improve communications generally in remote outback settlements, particularly in the Gulf of Carpentaria region, so they may be able to cope more ably in period of stress such as that experienced during Cyclone Kathy. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Science and Technology has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A new 'current state of the art' radar facility is planned for Gove and every endeavour will be made to have it operational by the 1985-86 tropical cyclone season. This radar will have both wind finding and weather watch capability and will enable better tracking of tropical cyclones in the Gulf of Carpentaria area. Gove will also have a radiosonde facility for the measurement of upper air temperature profiles used to aid the provision of forecast and warning services. The aged weather watch radar at Cairns is planned for replacement with a modern unit during 1986. Subject to the availability of capital funds it is also banned to provide a new radar facility at Weipa in the later 1980s to further improve the radar coverage in the Gulf area. This would provide improved tropical cyclone warning services and improved services to the aviation industry. (2) The Minister for Communication has provided the answers to this part of the question: Communications generally in remote outback settlements will be enhanced through Telecom's rural and remote areas program. This program has the following aims: (a) conversion of all remaining manual telephone services to automatic working (currently 27 000 services); (b) replacement of partly privately-erected telephone lines with Telecom plant; (c) provision of new telecommunications infrastructures in remote areas to bring telephone services to those people not currently served. Telecom estimates the direct capital cost of this program at $400m (1983-84 dollars) and aims to complete it by 1990. In the Gulf of Carpentaria region, Telecom plans include provision of broadband trunk facilities, and new customer distribution networks. These works include the following and are subject to adequate resources being available in the years ahead: Cloncurry-Normanton broadband trunk route, Burketown radio junctions off the above trunk route, Conversion of Croydon and Normanton exchanges to automatic operation, Provision of Digital Radio Concentrator System (DRCS) in the Normanton and Burketown areas, Services to Aboriginal communities including Doomadgee, Gununa, Kowanyama, Edward River and Aurukun. The importance of ABC and commercial broadcasting stations in providing emergency information is also recognised. Until now development of such services in remote areas has been limited because of the technology and resource problems involved. The expected launching in late 1985 of the first two satellites of the Australian Communications Satellite System (ACSS) is expected to improve radio and television services in remote areas. ACSS can broadcast direct to relatively inexpensive receiving dishes of 1.2 to 1.8 metres diameter. This facility, known as the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service, makes possible ABC services in each of four regional zones, and is independent of any conventional broadcasting station which might be disabled in a cyclone. Where a broadcasting facility does not exist or where an existing local station has been disabled, the Department of Communications has a transportable emergency broadcasting station held specifically for deployment to the scene of a disaster. Pending restoration of the local services the station can broadcast emergency messages and other information. It can be rapidly transported at short notice to transmit on any frequency in the medium frequency band. To assist the public it would normally operate on the same frequency as the inoperative station it replaces. Emergency coverage would be provided for at least 15-20 km. The station is unique in that it is fully self contained but broken down into component modules and packed into boxes ready for transportation to the disaster area. It may be carried, together with technicians, in any one of a variety of defence force or commercial aircraft, including helicopters. Upon reaching its destination it can be unpacked, reassembled and brought into operation within hours. (Question No. 953) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) What age children are eligible for hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustics Laboratory. (2) What is the cost to eligible children of hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustics Laboratory. (3) What other people qualify for hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustics Laboratory. (4) What is the cost to these eligible people of hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustics Laboratory. (5) What is the cost of hearing equipment and service for people if they are not eligible under the present rules for equipment and service from the National Acoustics Laboratory. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Children are eligible for services from the National Acoustic Laboratories from birth to the age of 21 years. (2) Eligible children receive hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustic Laboratories free of charge. (3) Persons holding health benefit cards. Sickness beneficiaries holding health benefits cards. Persons referred by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Serving members of the Armed Forces. Persons undergoing rehabilitation training through the Department of Social Security. Commonwealth Government employees where there is a Commonwealth liability for loss of hearing. (4) Eligible people receive hearing equipment and service from the National Acoustic Laboratories free of charge. (5) The latest published information was given by the Industries Assistance Commission in their report on 'Hearing Aids and Parts Therefore' of 17 December 1981. This report gave the retail price range for supplying and fitting of hearing aids as $400-$600 and an average retail price of $420-$450. Batteries cost about $50 per year. (Question No. 1067) Senator Jessop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Of the approximately 159,000 Aboriginals in Australia today, how many of these are traditional owners. (2) To what areas of land do these traditional owners lay claim. (3) How much is currently paid per annum in mining royalties to these traditional owners. (4) Are there any conditions applied to how such funds are used. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is not possible to estimate how many of the current Aboriginal population could be classed as 'traditional owners'. In the Northern Territory and large areas of South Australia and Western Australia, there are places where traditional mores and social structures remain viable. In the more closely settled areas of Australia the situation is more complex, and groups have fused or even disappeared. Notwithstanding, the influence of traditional ways and culture cannot be assumed to have completely disappeared in these areas. The term 'traditional Aboriginal owner' is defined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, as follows: '. . . in relation to land, means a local descent group of Aborigines who- (a) have common spiritual affiliations to a site on the land, being affiliations that place the group under a primary spiritual responsibility for that site and for the land; and (b) are entitled by Aboriginal tradition to forage as of right over the land.' In respect of the Northern Territory Act, I draw the honorable senator's attention to section 50 (1) (a) (i) which provides that the Aboriginal Land Commissioner, appointed under the Act, will '. . . ascertain whether those Aboriginals or any other Aboriginals are the traditional owners of the land' ( under claim). That definition has been refined through land claim hearings over the eight years of the operation of the Act. Aboriginal Land Councils set up under this legislation are charged to keep a Register of traditional owners in their area. This has proved to be a difficult and complex task, and the Registers are not yet completed. Other Aboriginal Land Rights Legislation, with the exception of the Pitjantjatjara and Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Acts, do not define Aboriginal traditional owners, nor require this matter to be established. Consequently, the question can only be answered in respect of those areas of the Northern Territory where claims have been heard and Reports provided. The senator's attention is drawn to the Reports of His Honour, Mr Justice Toohey, all of which have been tabled in both Houses of this Parliament. (2) See (1). (3) Details of mining moneys received in the Northern Territory by royalty associations, land councils and the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account for the period to 1981-82 are contained in the book Aborigines and Mining Royalties in the Northern Territory by Dr J C Altman, published by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in 1983. For the year 1982-83, 30 per cent of an estimated $17.611m in royalty equivalents was paid to traditional owners in areas where mining took place. (4) The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 sets down, in sections 35 and 64, conditions for the application of moneys so received. Section 65 (1), in addition, establishes a Trust Account Advisory Committee which operates under financial guidelines approved by the Minister. (Question No. 1068) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable's senator's question: (1) 66 at 24 August 1984. (2) 6 at 1 September 1984. Since October 1980 when the first repetition strain injury case was reported, 17 other staff have been affected but are no longer off work. Senator Grimes —On 27 March 1984 (Hansard, page 691) Senator Hearn asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning long stay patients at Launceston General Hospital: The Minister for Health has provided the following information in respect of charges for which such patients may be liable. The Commonwealth/State Medicare agreements provide that after 35 days continuous hospitalisation a patient will be automatically reclassified as a ' nursing home type patient' (NHTP) unless a medical practitioner certifies that the patient continues to require acute care. Nursing home type patients are required to make a personal (uninsurable) contribution towards the cost of accommodation in exactly the same manner as a person who is being provided with similar care and treatment in a nursing home. This contribution, known as the patient contribution, is payable at a level equivalent to 87.5 per cent of the sum of standard age pension and supplementary assistance payable under the Social Services Act. The NHTP arrangements apply at all recognised (that is, public) hospitals and private hospitals throughout Australia including, of course, the Launceston General Hospital. In Tasmania a form of NHTP arrangements has been in force for some time. Senator Button —On 4 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1192) Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the integration of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands with Australia and the future status of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. The Prime Minister has provided me with the following reply to the honourable senator's question: (a) There has been no decision by the Government to include the Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Island within the Northern Territory, nor has the Government given consideration to any such proposals. In relation to the Government's decision to include these islands within the Federal electorate of the Northern Territory for Federal election and referendum purposes, I refer the honourable senator to the answer given on 4 September 1984 to House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 1354 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 533). (b) The Government considers that it is in the national interest for the Ashmore and Cartier Islands to retain their status as a separate Commonwealth Territory under Commonwealth control. The question of appropriate administrative arrangements within these parameters is currently under review, and I have assured the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that his Government's views in this regard would be taken fully into account. Senator Grimes —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2758) Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the charging of nursing home fees during periods of temporary absence of patients. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: The National Health Act provides for the payment of Commonwealth nursing home benefits in respect of each day on which a qualified patient is accommodated in an approved nursing home. Where a patient is absent from a nursing home for a period of 24 hours or more, and has requested retention of the bed, the proprietor may charge a bed retention fee, up to the full approved fee, for that bed. Under the National Health Act, the payment of the Commonwealth daily nursing home benefit can be made only in respect of a patient who is actually occupying a bed in an approved home. Although this may involve the patient in additional expense, the bed retention fee was introduced at the request of both patients and proprietors as it removes a source of anxiety about permanency of occupation. Before the introduction of bed retention fees some patients were reluctant to leave the nursing home for short periods for fear of losing their accommodation. However, proprietors are encouraged to utilise temporarily vacant nursing home beds by the admission of short term patients. Where a bed is occupied in this way, bed retention fees are not payable. This results in a more efficient use of beds and relieves the financial burden on the absent patients. To assist patients to meet the cost of necessary or beneficial short-term absences arrangements apply whereby a patient can be absent from a nursing home for one night a month without loss of benefits, provided that the patient requests retention of the bed and the patient's doctor approves of the absence. The arrangements are dependent upon the patient receiving some nursing home care on both the day of departure and the day of return. Nevertheless, it is appreciated that these arrangements have some shortcomings, as does the overall system of funding nursing homes. In the context of its aged care policy, the Government intends to introduce a system of program grants to nursing homes which will alleviate some of the existing problems. Patient absences is one factor which will be taken into account in the development of these arrangements. (Question No. 952) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 12 June 1984: (1) What is the area of Crown land in Australia currently held by the Commonwealth Government. (2) What percentage of the total area of that Crown land is not currently in regular use. (3) Will the Minister for Administrative Services explain whether this unused land could be disposed of without jeopardising national interest, either by auction or by other means. (4) Will the Minister furnish details about: (a) the area; (b) the location and boundaries; (c) the estimated current market value; and (d) the productive potential in terms of arable dirt, of each tract of Crown land in Australia and its Territories which is not currently in use. (5) Will the Commonwealth Government consider making certain areas of Crown land available in each State and Territory for pilot projects in establishing co -operative kibbutz-style settlements in order to rescue at least some of the growing legion of long-term unemployed and homeless youth. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 1,684,768 hectares. (2) and (3) The Property Directorate of the Department of Administrative Services is presently conducting an on-going review of all Commonwealth property to ensure that properties which are not in regular use are identified and disposed. Properties identified as surplus to requirements are disposed of in accordance with well established procedures. These require that Commonwealth departments are curcularised to determine if there is a Commonwealth need. If there is none the property is first offered to the former owner (if applicable), then to State and local government and the general public, in that order. When offered on the open market the highest price is always sought. (4) I am unable to answer this part of the question as I am not prepared to divert scarce staffing resources to undertake the research necessary at a time when such resources are fully utilised. (5) Development of programs for the unemployed is a matter for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. However, the current practice of selling surplus land for maximum return gives the Government greater scope to allocate resources to the most appropriate programs. (Question No. 998) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: Will those Commonwealth Government departments with envelopes carrying the initials OHMS continue to use such envelopes when old stock or stock obtained through long-standing contracts has been used (see answer to Senate Question No. 674). Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There is no Government directive on this matter. It is the decision of individual departments whether or not they continue to use envelopes carrying the initials OHMS. (Question Nos. 1000-1027) Senator Archer asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What new authorities, committees and bureaus or other such groups (a) have been established; or (b) are proposed by, or within, the Department which are in addition to the reply furnished recently, by the Minister, to 30 June 1984. (2) How many additional staff (a) have been, or are now being appointed, or (b) are proposed to be recruited as a result which are in addition to information supplied in the recent reply as at 30 June 1984. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, on behalf of all Ministers, with their concurrence: (1) and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator on the establishment or proposed establishment of new authorities, committees and bureaus or other such groups by or within the various Departments is, in almost every case, already publicly available; for example, in ministerial Press statements, which are circulated to all members of Parliament and published in the Commonwealth Record, or the annual reports of departments which are tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. Further relevant information may be found in the Commonwealth Government Directory and the Budget Papers. The honourable senator has received, or will shortly receive, answers to Questions Nos. 517-544 which he asked of all Ministers. Considerable time and expense were involved in the preparation of those replies. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to continue to authorise the work and expenditure required to collate the information requested through repeated questions of this nature. However, if the honourable senator wishes to have information concerning a particular authority, committee, bureau or other such group, I shall be happy to see if he can be provided with the requested information. (Question No. 1032) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veteran's Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: Could the lease on the building previously housing the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service (VVCS) in Brisbane have been retained until permanent accommodation became available; if so, why was this not done. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: At the time the VVCS was established by the previous Government doubt was expressed as to the need for this service to be established on a permanent basis . The Brisbane Centre was established on a short term lease which expired after twelve months when the Centre remained on site on a permissive occupancy basis. With the recent re-leasing of the building it was no longer a practical proposition for the Service to remain on site and the Centre was required to be relocated on temporary premises pending the completion of permanent facilities. I am pleased to advise that the Centre has now been relocated in its permanent premises at 303 Coronation Drive, Milton as from 24 August 1984.