Tuesday, 16 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-I inform the Senate that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, left Australia on 14 October for ministerial discussions in Japan and China. The Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is acting Minister until Senator Walsh's return on 27 October and I will be representing Senator Walsh in this chamber. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of territorial or local government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Richardson (from 129 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from 471 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Martin (from 18 citizens), Messner (from 159 citizens), Missen (from three citizens) and Scott (from 45 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 supercede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled. Should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Tate (from eight citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia 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 so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 325 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video- cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc . Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button (from 33 citizens), Robertson (from 57 citizens) and Scott ( from 24 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 Australian Capital Territory 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 Senator Jack Evans (from 271 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 940 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That indirect taxes such as sales tax inflate prices, reduce sales, and hence restrict employment opportunities; that land value taxes stimulate the effective use of sites. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will carefully consider the desirability of replacing indirect taxes by a land value tax in order to stimulate Australia's economy. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. A petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we who use the Hanover Centre, highly value and need the services it provides in its present location and would suffer considerable hardship should it be forced to close or move. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that the Hanover Centre should remain open in the Carlton Area. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd located in the State of Victoria, respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products, developed by research-based companies; Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for the continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research- based companies which are product originators. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research- based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from a petitioning corporation). Petitions received. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for not establishing the committee of inquiry into violent pornographic videos before the 1984 election; (b) notes with concern that as a result of the Federal Government's deliberate stalling on this issue, at least four months will elapse before the promised joint committee will now be set up, showing total disregard for the increasing concern of the people of Australia for the possible harmful side-effects this material is unleashing in this community; (c) insists the Federal Government now has no alternative but to declare an immediate moratorium on all sales and distribution of 'X' and 'R' rated videos, pending the outcome of this blatantly belated inquiry; and (d) calls on the Federal Government to support the establishment of a Senate select committee to investigate the problems associated with the sale and distribution of violent pornographic videos in Australia, so that the next four months need not be entirely wasted in this regard. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —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 provide for the preparation of legislation for the reform of the Australian taxation systems and the introduction of that legislation into the Parliament. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) convinced that some unions are outside Government control, even in defence matters and so cannot be relied upon to service naval vessels of friendly countries, as evidenced by the fact that HMS Invincible was unable to receive repairs at an Australian dry dockyard; (b) aware of just how short-sighted the attitude of the Minister for Defence is when he agrees that Australia will have time to prepare against any attack on Australia; (c) aware that we are now spending almost as much on interest on the public debt of this country as we are on defence; (d) is of the opinion that ANZUS has effectively been destroyed by the Hawke Labor Party combined with the New Zealand Labour Party and the Government is therefore failing in its prime requirement of any government to protect its people; and calls upon the Government to recognise the danger to all of Australia of the destruction of ANZUS and to take the necessary urgent action to correct the situation before it is too late. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the election commitment of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to raise the general tax threshold and the pensioner tax threshold; (b) the statement by the present Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, on 8 August 1982 that 'it's absurd that pensioners who are officially classified as ''needy'' should be forced to pay income tax'; (c) that as a consequence of the Hawke Labor Government's failure to honour its election commitments, pensioners' tax bills have increased by more than 400 per cent over the past two years, for example: (i) a single pensioner on the full pension and with $20 a week other income paid just $20 tax in 1982-83 but will pay $109 this financial year, (ii) a single pensioner on the full pension with $25 a week additional income has had a tax increase of $79 over this period, and (iii) a single pensioner on the full pension with $30 a week other income has had their tax bill rise from $244 in 1982-83 to $313 this financial year. (d) that under the Hawke Labor Government, pensioners who are officially classified as needy are being forced to pay more income tax; (e) that this represents yet another attack upon the aged and elderly in the community by the Hawke Labor Government; and condemns the Hawke Labor Government for including the aged in its attempts to grab taxes to pay for its programs. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls the Treasurer to clarify the Federal Government's position regarding the Commonwealth Superannuation scheme before the 1984 election; (b) draws to the attention of the Treasurer, Mr Keating, the glaring inconsistencies between New South Wales and the Federal Labor Government's interpretation of the most economic means of paying superannuation to Government employees; (c) notes the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh's endorsement in the Senate on 5 October 1984, of the New South Wales scheme of abolition of periodic payments of superannuation, forcing Public Service pensioners to take the lump sum and pay the 31 per cent levy on that payment; (d) abhors the fact that the Government could be considering the withdrawal of options from Commonwealth public servants in their choice of superannuation payments, without warning them before the 1984 election; (e) calls on the Federal Government to recognise that public servants do not enjoy the perquisites of many private enterprise employees, such as company cars , expense accounts, company housing or low interest company loans, payment of children's school fees and the like; (f) recognises that a compensatory factor in Public Service careers prior to the election of this Government was the expectation of a moderately comfortable retirement; (g) deplores the erosion of retirement benefits of public servants by the iniquitous impost of its 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments; and (h) implores the Federal Government to take no further action which will either erode even further those compulsory savings of public servants or remove their choice of method of payment of superannuation benefits. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate notes that- (a) figures prepared on the same basis as used by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, when in Opposition show: (i) a 7.3 per cent decline in the relative position of age and invalid pensioners and married unemployment beneficiaries' disposable incomes in comparison to the Henderson poverty line, (ii) a 3.4 per cent decline in the position of widows with one child and a 7.6 per cent decline for supporting parents beneficiaries with one child, and (iii) a 2.0 per cent decline in the position of single over 18 unemployment beneficiaries with $20 a week other income; (b) these figures clearly show the Hawke Labor Government's lack of concern for social welfare beneficiaries; (c) these figures reinforce the results of the 1984-85 Budget which, by granting people on incomes of $700 a week greater increases through a revised tax system than the $2.50 a week given to pensioners and beneficiaries, indicated that this Government, like the trade union movement, is more concerned with the employed than the unemployed; (d) these figures provide a graphic illustration of the sorts of policies which would flow from a Government led by a man who is reported to have told an Economic Planning Advisory Committee meeting that the unemployed was an irrelevant section of the community; and condemns the Hawke Labor Government for not living up to its statements and rhetoric when in Opposition. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (1) Views with considerable concern, the failure of the Government- (a) to honour the pre-election promise of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, to upgrade the Wynyard airport to medium jet standard; (b) to take due note of the report by the independent firm of Airport and Systems Design Australia Pty Ltd as to the need for such upgrading; (c) to have its Tasmanian members in the Senate take an active part in keeping the Government informed of the needs of Tasmania and Tasmanian developments generally; (d) through the Minister for Aviation to accept a statement that he was unaware of any justification for a review of the reneging, when in particular: (i) South of Wynyard, there has been confirmation of the largest mineral deposit in Australia for some years, (ii) the Tasmanian State Government has announced road development plans for the west coast that will substantially increase the ease of domestic, commercial and tourist traffic to the Wynyard airport, (iii) Burnie has been confirmed as the major general cargo port for Tasmania, and (iv) a new major fishing industry has been proposed for Burnie. (e) to hand over money due to Tasmania from compensation funds and for a purpose approved and requested by the Tasmanian Government as being both necessary and desirable for Tasmania's development. (2) Accepting that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, says regularly that he is an honest man, still looks to him to honour a promise made without pressure, or to at least pay $3m, if he still will not meet his voluntary $6m commitment of February 1983. 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. Independent Air Fares Committee-Annual Report 1983-1984-Pursuant to section 32 of the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981. 2. Exposure of Australians to Radiation at Maralinga-Report. 3. British Nuclear Tests in Australia by the Australian Ionising and Radiation Advisory Council-Report. 4. Environmental Assessment-Text of a Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. 5. Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Annual Report 1983-1984-Together with the text of a statement relating to the Report. 6. Department of Finance-Annual Report 1983-84. 7. Out of the Silent Land-Report of the Task Force on Aboriginal and Islander Broadcasting and Communications. 8. Department of Housing and Construction-Annual Report 1983-84-Included in this Report is the Home Savings Grant Annual Report 1983-84 pursuant to section 53 (2) of the Home Savings Grant Act 1976-Home Deposit Assistance Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 64 (2) of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982 and the First Home Owners Annual Report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 41 (2) of the First Home Owners Act 1983. 9. Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee-Annual Report for the period 25 June-30 June 1984-Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Selection Committee Act 1984. 10. Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-Annual Report 1983-84-The Report also incorporates the Annual Report of the National Director of the Commonwealth Employment Service. 11. Industries Assistance Commission-Annual Report 1983-1984-pursuant to Section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce relating to the Report. 12. Regional Commercial Television Services-text of a statement by the Minister for Communications made in the House of Representatives on 10 October 1984. 13. Advance to the Minister for Finance-statement on Expenditure for August 1984. 14. Committee of Inquiry into rights of private practice in Public Hospitals- final report-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Health relating to the Report made in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984. 15. Australian Federal Police-Annual Report 1983-1984. 16. Arrangements for implementation of the new nationality requirement for appointment to the Australian Public Service (APS) (including operation of the waiver provision)-paper. 17. Australia's Population Trends and Prospects 1984-Report-together with the text of a statement relating to the Report. 18. ACT Surveyors Board-Annual Report 1983-1984. 19. Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board-Annual Report 1982-1983. 20. Social Impact of Uranium Mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory -Report. 21. Task Force established to review Private Hospital Categorisation Arrangements-Report. 22. International Labour Organisation-Instruments adopted by the 68th Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1983-together with the text of a statement relating to the Instruments. 23. Establishment of National Occupational Health and Safety Commission-text of a statement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984. 24. Text of a statement relating to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety-Interim Report on Motorcycle and Bicycle Helmet Safety Inquiry. 25. Text of a statement relating to the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee-'Lighthouses: Do we keep the keepers.' 26. Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs-text of a Statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs made in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984. 27. Defence Force-text of a statement by the Minister for Defence made in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984. 28. Inquiry into the National Road Freight Industry-text of a statement by the Minister for Transport made in the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984. 29. Primary Industry Bank-Annual Report 1984-pursuant to Section 10 (1) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. 30. Child Migrant Education Report 1983-1984-pursuant to Section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971. Together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs relating to the Report. 31. Australian Institute of Marine Science-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to Section 44 of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972. 32. High Court of Australia-Annual Report 1983-1984-pursuant to Section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979. The PRESIDENT —The following message has been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 392 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate that, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1983, the following Members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, viz.: Mr Baldwin, Mr Brumby, Mr Griffiths, Mr Hall and Mr McGauran. H. A. JENKINS Speaker The PRESIDENT —The following message has been received from the House of Representatives: Message No. 393 Mr President, The House of Representatives, having considered Message No. 265 of the Senate, agrees that the disclosure of evidence or documents of joint committees be authorised by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the same conditions as are provided in paragraph (1) of the message. H. A. JENKINS Speaker Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.15) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the financing of redundancies in the stevedoring industry and thus to contribute to the continued stability of industrial relations on Australia's waterfront and to improve the efficiency of stevedoring operations generally. Honourable senators will be aware of the importance of a stable and efficient stevedoring industry for Australia's economy and for its trading relationship with other countries. I will now explain briefly to honourable senators the background to this Bill. Successive Australian governments have had a history of active and statutory involvement in the industry going back to 1942. 1977 saw the culmination of a series of developments which enabled Government to withdraw from its regulatory role in the industry and to leave the parties to manage their own affairs. As a result of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference chaired by Sir Richard Kirby in 1976-77, detailed agreement was reached between the parties and the Federal Government to this effect. Nevertheless, there remain certain statutory levying arrangements which were retained for a variety of detailed reasons which need not be gone into now. These are controlled by a representative statutory committee, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. Other levies on employers are managed by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. The arrangements that I have referred to briefly here, Mr President, were and are concerned with the employment of waterside workers. Other categories of labour on the waterfront have not been covered by government-involved centralised industry employment and financing arrangements. However, the industry itself has instituted such arrangements for most categories of ancillary labour. Prior to 1978 the proceeds of a statutory levy, the Stevedoring Industry Charge , were administered by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority which was abolished as part of the new arrangements entered into at the beginning of that year. The levy covered employers' contributions to the pension fund for waterside workers, idle time payments, long service leave payments, provision of amenities, the administration of the authority itself, provisions for long service leave liabilities and redundancy and transfer payments. There are now two types of statutory levies: one is a general levy on man hours which finances employers' retirement fund contributions, long service leave provisions, administration costs, the Port Conciliator Service and, in non-permanent ports, attendance money, guaranteed wage and retainer and annual leave; and the second is a special levy on tonnages and on man-hours employed on bulk cargoes, which has been used to pay out the so-called Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority deficit. This second levy needs to be put into historical perspective, Mr President. A substantial round of redundancies occurred prior to the introduction of the 1978 reductions and this was funded by allowing a shortfall in the long service leave fund of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority amounting to some $25m. This is being paid off through the statutory special levies introduced in 1978 which are nearing the end of their lives. Further technological change, improvements in overall productivity, changes to trading patterns and conditions of recession led to a need for substantial workforce reductions beyond those already achieved. Since the introduction of containerisation in the late 1960's, significant reductions in the industry's workforce have been achieved, without industrial disruption, through the co- operation of the parties. By way of illustration, the number of ''A'' register waterside workers has declined from 21,259 in June 1966 to 6,489 in July 1984, or, by nearly 70%. Estimates of the number of redundant waterside workers have been put forward by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and are based on an extensive independent manpower needs survey commissioned in 1983. That study, by a firm of consultants, represents a welcome attempt to address the manpower needs of the industry in a considered, scientific manner. The industry has identified an overriding need to further reduce idle time costs by reducing significantly the number of waterside workers. This is beyond the capacity of the industry itself to fund on a centralised basis. It approached the Government with a proposal that the industry redundancies be financed through the statutory levy arrangements. This has already been attended to by the Government adjusting existing statutory levies. The industry also proposed that a loan of $15.5m taken out by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour to fund redundancy payments to waterside workers in 1983 be re-financed through the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee to enable the Association to borrow further funds to deal with redundancy among ancillary labour. That proposal has the general support of various user and other interest groups which have been consulted through the Stevedoring Industry Consultative Council. The Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee, which is comprised of representatives of the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour, the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, the Australian National Line, the Waterside Workers Federation and a Government-appointed Chairman, also supports the proposal. The Government has accepted the proposal and this Bill is designed to implement one aspect of the necessary measures-the re-financing of the AEWL Loan through the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new section 8A into the Principal Act, the Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Act 1977. That section authorises the SIFC to pay to the AEWL an amount sufficient to enable the AEWL to discharge the loan which it took out in May 1983 and contains provisions to ensure that the debt is discharged accordingly or that the payment made to the AEWL is recoverable by the SIFC. No amounts are specified in the legislation because the precise amount needed to discharge the loan will depend upon the date of repayment; that is, upon the amount of interest due at that time and upon the amount to be paid under the agreement as a consequence of the early repayment of the principal sum. As honourable senators will have realised by now, this Bill forms only part of the proposals that have been accepted by the Government. I turn now to the reasons why the Government accepted these proposals. First, there is an undisputed need to reduce the excessively high level of idle time and its associated costs. Based on existing conditions it is estimated that redundancy payments to the 543 WWF members identified by AEWL as redundant will be some $22m. This would be paid out over 7 years at an average annual cost of $6m including interest. This compares with estimated savings on idle time payments of $9.8m per annum. Other savings ($2.8m per annum) will arise in liabilities which would normally accrue to employees made redundant. There will be no cost to the Federal Government because the redundancy payments will be financed by the industry as has been the successful practice in the past . Procedures for collecting and disbursing levy payments are already in place. Re-financing the AEWL loan through the SIFC will enable the AEWL to deal with claims by other unions for redundancy payments, thus reducing the number of workers in ancillary areas to more realistic levels. The level of redundancy payments has yet to be negotiated but is expected to be in accordance with past practice in the industry. Any agreement reached will go before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and will be subject to assessment in the light of the national wage guidelines. In accepting the industry's proposals in this matter, the Government is recognising the serious joint efforts being made in the industry to improve its efficiency. It is expected that the industry will continue this review process and the Government looks forward to hearing of further progress. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill proposes a number of amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. It establishes around the Bass Strait petroleum production facilities an area to be avoided by unauthorised Australian ships; it transfers from the designated authority to the joint authority the power to exercise control over rates of petroleum production; it authorises reference of proposals relating to licence work exemptions to the joint authority; and it removes a number of drafting inconsistencies. A Bill to establish the area to be avoided in Bass Strait came before the Parliament in late 1982 but lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament in early 1983. The amendments contained in the current Bill are similar to those of that earlier Bill, with the addition of provisions to allow the declaration of a state of emergency in times of heightened terrorist threat, that is, above the normal level. Under the provisions of the Bill, entry into the area to be avoided in Bass Strait is prohibited to Australian vessels over 200 tons and, in times of heightened terrorist threat, to all Australian vessels. In regard to foreign vessels, the area to be avoided was approved by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 1981 and advisory measures were promulgated by the IMO in October 1982. General compliance with those measures has been achieved. The proposed area to be avoided covers an area extending 50 nautical miles from the Victorian coast and embraces all the offshore platforms and associated submarine pipelines. Complementary legislation will be introduced in Victoria to cover the area between the coast and the outer limit of the territorial sea. The outer boundary of the area is approximately five nautical miles beyond the platforms. The Bill provides that, where an unauthorised vessel enters or remains in the area, the owner and the master may be liable to a fine of up to $50,000 or five years imprisonment, or both. Provision is made for possible defences against prosecution on the grounds of an unforeseen emergency or because of circumstances beyond the control of the person in charge. The powers of authorised persons to enforce these new provisions are set out in the Bill. They include the power to board a vessel, to order the removal of a vessel from the area and to order a disabled vessel to accept assistance. A person refusing to comply with the instructions of authorised persons acting within their powers may be fined up to $5,000. Provision is made for the issue of warrants to authorised persons and for the exercise of their powers without a warrant in emergency circumstances. The Bill also provides for all unauthorised Australian ships to be excluded from the area when a state of emergency is declared because of a terrorist or extortion threat. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), acting on the advice of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and in consultation with Victoria's designated authority-the relevant State Minister-will be able to declare a state of emergency for up to 14 days and to extend the declaration by further periods of 14 days if necessary. The introduction of the area to be avoided is necessary to ensure the protection of one of Australia's most important resource development projects. It is also essential in order that the risk to the lives of those working on the production platforms and on ships passing through the area is minimised. The Bill also provides for the joint authority-the Commonwealth Minister and the relevant State or Northern Territory Minister-to issue directions to licensees as to the rate of recovery of petroleum from licence areas. This will remove an inconsistency in the present legislation whereby the joint authority is responsible for directing commencement of production but the designated authority is empowered to direct licensees to increase or reduce that production . In addition, the amendments provide for the joint authority to direct the rates of recovery of petroleum from individual pools in a licence area, as well as the licence area as a whole, as provided for under the present legislation. In view of the importance to Commonwealth revenue of rates of production from offshore petroleum fields, the amendments also specify Commonwealth revenue considerations as a reason for joint authority direction as to rates of recovery of petroleum. Since its introduction, this part of the Bill has been amended by the Government to ensure that, for whatever reasons a direction on rates of petroleum recovery is being considered, including Commonwealth revenue considerations, a direction shall not be contrary to good oil-field practice. Provision is also made to ensure that there is no limitation on the matters which may be taken into account when a direction is being considered. The Bill also provides that any proposals by the designated authority to vary work conditions in licences be made subject to examination by the joint authority at the direction of the Commonwealth Minister. This removes an inconsistency in the division of responsibilities between the joint authority and the designated authority. It is unacceptable that, while the joint authority must approve the original work conditions of a licence, and can approve or vary permit conditions, it cannot, under the Act as it stands at present, vary work conditions of a licence. Finally, the Bill removes a number of drafting inconsistencies and ambiguities, many of which were identified during the preparation of complementary State- Northern Territory legislation. A draft of this Bill was circulated to the States and the Northern Territory and to industry earlier this year. A number of comments received have been incorporated into the Bill now before the Senate. The provisions of the Bill have no direct financial impact. The amendments proposed in this Bill are essential to the continued effective administration of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill is to give effect to the Government's decision that the protective service component of the AFP should be abolished and that the bulk of the functions formerly undertaken by that component should be transferred to a separate protective service organisation, which is to be established within the Department of Administrative Services. It is expected that the transfer will take place in October 1984. The Government has taken this decision on the basis that the quality of service able to be offered by an organisation dedicated to a single task is significantly better than that offered by an organisation responsible for two or more dissimilar functions. There is a clear distinction between the requirements and characteristics of an organisation which is intended to perform the range of duties required of a modern police force and those of an organisation dedicated to performing the more specialised functions of access control and the security of premises. The decision is strongly supported by AFP and by user departments, is consistent with the views of the previous government announced in December 1982 and with the proposal made last year by Royal Commissioner Mr Justice Stewart. The necessary consultative processes to implement the decision have already begun, and will involve the Australian Federal Police Association and representatives of the protective service component. Training courses are under way for those members of the component who wish to qualify to transfer to general policing duties and thus, if suitable, to remain with the AFP. Those persons who are eligible and suitable will be able to transfer on satisfactory completion of such courses. Members of the protective service component who do not wish to qualify, or do not qualify, to remain with the AFP, will transfer to the new service on terms, conditions and salaries comparable to those they presently enjoy, and with preservation of leave and other credits. Details of these matters remain under active consideration. The precise duties of personnel employed by the new service are matters for consultation with user-departments. The Department of Foreign Affairs is to establish its own guarding arrangements. The question of guarding at detention centres administered by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is the subject of further consideration. Members of the AFP will continue to perform their present policing functions at certain locations-official residences, Parliament House, airports, embassies, consulates and at such other places as may be determined. The Bill does not in any way alter the functions, powers, administration, methods of appointment to or the terms and conditions of service to the AFP. Its sole purpose is to remove from the Australian Federal Police Act all references to the protective service component and to the AFP as comprising two components. Nor does the Bill contain any machinery provisions under which former protective service component members will be transferred into the public service. The necessary machinery for the transfer already exists in Division 9F of the Public Service Act 1922. The ongoing cost of the new service will be offset by reductions in AFP votes. There will, however, be some establishment costs in 1984-85, associated with the transfer of function. These will cover such items as uniforms and the purchase of equipment which cannot be transferred from the AFP. It is envisaged that these costs will be of the order of $1.5 million, and they will be the subject of further, detailed consideration in the context of the 1984-85 Budget. The Bill includes two minor amendments to the AFP Act-to sections 15 and 36- which, had the Bill not been introduced, would have been incorporated in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The purpose of the amendment proposed to section 15 is to ensure flexibility in day to day administration of the AFP by providing that delegations may follow functional lines, acknowledging that administration functions of the force are carried out jointly by police officers and public servants. The purpose of the amendment to section 36 of the act is to permit implementation of the recommendations of a recently completed joint management review of the AFP, the first since the force was established in 1979. The review report has proposed significant improvements in AFP manpower control procedures, training and promotion systems. The amendment preserves the 'efficiency' criteria, which is an essential element of the present provision, and directs consideration of certain relevant matters in evaluating the relative efficiency of members competing for promotion. I have arranged for an explanatory memorandum to be distributed to all honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Mr President, this Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament to make a large number of non-contentious amendments. Not every amendment proposed by this Bill requires detailed reasons for the change; this will be self-evident from the provision itself, or the detailed explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. The Second Reading Speech is, therefore, confined to addressing the more substantial amendments. I propose, with the leave of the Senate, to have incorporated in Hansard the full text of the Second Reading Speech explaining in detail many of the changes to the various Acts which are to be made by this Bill. Amendments of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 The Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 at present provides that only Aboriginals (including Torres Strait Islanders) may be members of Aboriginal associations incorporated under the Act. The members of a number of Aboriginal associations have expressed a desire to be able to confer membership on the non-Aboriginal spouses of Aboriginal members and specified membership rights on other non-Aboriginals. The amendments to the membership provisions of the Act will enable Aboriginal corporations to include such provisions in the corporation's rules, should the members so desire. Non-Aboriginal spouses will be able to vote and stand for office, but other non-Aboriginals with specified rights will not be able to vote or stand for office. This will ensure that the decision making function remains the responsibility of the Aboriginal members and their spouses. The Act at present requires Aboriginal corporations incorporated under the Act to obtain written Ministerial approval before they can mortgage, charge or sell any land. These provisions were originally inserted in the Act to safeguard against Aboriginal corporations acquiring land through a Commonwealth grant and the corporation then disposing of the land or asset in an unwise manner. As these safeguards are now considered paternalistic and unnecessary the Bill deletes the provisions from the Act. It is envisaged that in future whenever a major asset, such as land, is acquired or provided for an Aboriginal corporation, any safeguard provision should be the subject of specific arrangements between the Aboriginal corporation and the provider of the funds or asset, by use of normally accepted commercial practices such as a mortgage or charge over the title. The Act at present requires the governing Committee of all Incorporated Aboriginal Associations to prepare annual financial statements, consisting of statements of income and expenditure and balance as at 30 June, to have these statements audited, and to then file a copy of these audited financial statements with the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations each year. Because of their geographic isolation, or lack of assets, it has proved impractical, or inappropriate, for many isolated or small Aboriginal Associations to have audited annual financial statements prepared when the nearest auditor may be hundreds of kilometres away and the costs would exceed the value of the Association's assets. The Bill inserts provisions that will enable the Registrar to have some discretion in the type of annual financial reports he may require Aboriginal Associations to submit. It is intended that the reporting provisions will only be relaxed for small or geographically isolated Aboriginal Associations, and all Associations that are receiving substantial funds or have substantial assets or liabilities will still be required to prepare complete annual audited financial statements and file a copy with the Registrar. Archives Act 1983 Two minor amendments to the Archives Act 1983 are proposed. The proposed amendment of sub-section 44 (3) of the Archives Act 1983 corrects an erroneous cross-reference. The reference in that sub-section to sub-section (5) of section (44) should be to sub-section (7). The proposed amendment to section 71 of the Archives Act 1983 will enable the Australian Archives to levy charges for services provided in relation to certain records of those Commonwealth institutions identified as 'business undertakings' listed in Schedule 2 of Archives Regulations (Statutory rules No. 100) whose records are in the custody of the Archives. This is in accordance with established policy that such organisations should be provided with services on a cost recovery basis. The records concerned are those which do not form part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth in that they are retained for a limited period and then destroyed. The Archives Act 1983 currently enables the Australian Archives to levy charges only for the transfer and storage of such records. It does not allow the organisation, as was intended, to levy charges for other associated services such as retrieval, issue and inspection of records. Prior to the proclamation of the Archives Act 1983 charges for these services had been levied under the authority of the Audit Act 1901. Following proclamation, the Archives Act 1983 became the relevant authority under which charges should be levied. The proposed amendment will therefore allow the Australian Archives to resume levying those servicing charges, other than for transfer and storage, which have been in abeyance since the Act was proclaimed on 6 June 1984. Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 The Bill amends the relevant provisions of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 to empower the Minister to extend until the 30 June, 1986 the terms of office of members of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation whose terms expired on 30 June 1984. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979 The amendments to this Act clarify the definition of ''Commonwealth authority'' and the operation of delegations. Commonwealth Functions (Statute Review) Act 1981 This amendment has been made necessary by a decision taken by the International Wool Textile Organisation to discard the distinction between pre-sale and post- sale wool test certificates that are an important medium for the description of greasy wool in international commerce. As a further result of the change in the name of the test certificate, it is also proposed to amend sub-section 116 (2) to make it clear that the sub-section applies only to samples of greasy wool, and does not relate to the issue of test certificates for other wool. Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972 The four amendments are consequential upon the Government's Public Service reforms, and remove the involvement of the Public Service Board in the creation, abolition, relocation or reclassification of offices in the Commonwealth Teaching Service. All such actions are to become the responsibility of the Commonwealth Teaching Service itself. Copyright Act 1968 The amendments of the Copyright Act 1968 seek largely to make a number of tidying adjustments to the provisions introduced by the Copyright Amendment Act 1980. The 1980 Act generally gave effect to the recommendations of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction (''the Franki Committee'') relating to the photocopying of copyright works. Special meetings convened by the Attorney- General's Department between 1981 and 1983 with representatives of copyright owners' organisations, educational institutional institutions and libraries monitored the operation of the 1980 amendments and identified certain defects and ambiguities in the provisions dealing with copying by libraries and educational institutions. None of the proposed amendments makes a fundamental change to the scheme of the 1980 Act and most are acceptable in principle to the interests affected. Of the proposed amendments to a number of the definitions contained in section 10 of the Act, the amendments extending the range of bodies falling within the definition of ''educational institutions'' are the most significant. These amendments will enable some special categories of bodies which perform educational functions to utilise the statutory licence provisions of the Act by which educational institutions are permitted to multiple copy works, provided records of the copying are kept and an appropriate royalty paid as demanded by the copyright owner within a prescribed time. New section 10A will introduce a new administrative mechanism to facilitate the declaration of bodies as educational institutions, central records authorities or institutions assisting handicapped readers. This mechanism will eliminate the need for such bodies to have their status declared by regulations made under the Act. The amendments of the library copying provisions in sections 49 and 50 will enable libraries to supply library users with copies of published artistic works that are not readily available commercially and to service more effectively the reasonable requirements of library users who, by reason of their geographical remoteness, cannot conveniently comply with the usual statutory requirements applicable to library copying. New sections 48A and 104A clarify and extend the existing protection against copyright infringements afforded to an authorised library officer of a Parliamentary library when assisting a Member of Parliament. These amendments, together with the removal of references to Members of Parliament in section 49, will have the effect of complementing the existing privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament in respect of their dealings with copyright material in the course of their Parliamentary duties. The proposed amendments of section 53D of the Act will enable an institution assisting handicapped readers to make, or have made on its behalf, a copy of a work in order to make handicapped readers' copies of that work under the statutory licensing scheme without infringing copyright. The main purpose of the proposed amendments to sections 203A-203H is to re-cast the defences available to a person or body prosecuted for a breach of any of the offences concerned with record-keeping matters. The amendments will modify the effects of strict liability imposed on record-keepers and others under the existing provisions by providing defences to the relevant offences based on reasonable care and reasonable belief. Crimes Act 1914 As the Northern Territory Government has enacted its own criminal code which came into operation on 1 January 1984, it is now appropriate that the Crimes Act 1914 should reflect the self-governing status of the Territory. Accordingly the term 'State' is to include the Northern Territory and 'Territory' is to exclude the Northern Territory. These definitions are inserted into section 3 of the Crimes Act 1914. The Special Prosecutor, Mr R. V. Gyles Q.C., has drawn attention to an anomalous situation: although there is an existing offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, the Crimes Act 1984 does not contain a substantive offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. In some circumstances, conspiracy trials , with all the attendant problems for both prosecution and defence, become necessary due to this deficiency. The insertion of a new section 29D cures this defect by creating a new offence of defrauding the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth. The Act is also amended to bring the penalty for the offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth into line with the penalty that may be imposed for offences against the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980. The same penalty is to apply to the new offence of defrauding the Commonwealth, namely a penalty of $50 ,000 or imprisonment for 5 years or both. Customs Act 1901 The amendment to this Act which deserves specific mention applies to section 163 which proposes to clarify that the regulation making power in that section extends to prescribing the amount of any remission, rebate or refund of Customs duty. Legal advice confirms that when section 163 was amended in 1983 to add the word 'rebate' it was intended that the regulation making power extend to the amounts of any rebate as well as the circumstances, conditions and restrictions attached to any rebate. It is considered desirable to put this question beyond doubt by effecting the proposed amendment. Excise Act 1901 Two amendments are proposed to this Act. One proposes an amendment to section 78 of the Act similar to the amendment proposed to section 163 of the Customs Act 1901 by this Bill extending the regulation making power to the amount of any remission, rebate or refund. The other proposes an amendment to section 24 of the Act to make certain that the provisions of that section authorise, as required by section 61 of the Act, the movement alteration or interference with excisable goods in the manufacture of other excisable goods. Legal advice confirms that the term delivery in that section means delivery for home consumption. The intention of the section is to permit certain excisable goods subject to conditions, if any, to be used in the manufacture of other excisable goods in a factory or factories specified in an excise manufacturer's licence without being required to enter for home consumption or pay any excise duty. The proposed amendment is designed to remove any doubt as to the intention of the section. Family Law Act 1975 The amendments to section 116C of the Family Law Act 1975 are consequential amendments to amendments contained in Part III of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983 which allow the Judges of the Court to make Rules of Court governing matters of practice and procedure. Upon the making of Rules of Court, regulations which previously covered matters contained in the Rules of Court will be repealed. Accordingly, some matters in relation to which regulations may presently fix amounts that may be paid to legal practitioners by legal aid bodies will be relocated in Rules of Court. Health Insurance Act 1973 The Public Service Reform Act 1984 implemented the Government's policies for reform of the Australian Public Service. Among those reforms was the change in the designation of departmental heads from 'Permanent Head' to 'Secretary'. Consistent with that reform this Bill replaces the title of 'Director-General of Health' with the title 'Secretary to the Department of Health', thus bringing this title into line with those of other departmental heads. Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 The proposed amendment of sub-section 4 (1) of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976 will remove the discrimination against companies seeking Commonwealth grant support to improve their existing computer software products. Amendment to the definition will make it clear that these projects may be supported under the Act. All applications for project grant support are subject to specified assessment criteria established by Ministerial direction. These directions include criteria specifically relating to computer software projects. Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 In accordance with undertakings given by the Minister for Finance at the time of introduction of this Act, two of the proposed amendments require the Merit Protection and Review Agency to notify Parliament of certain extensions to its jurisdiction and require the Agency to include in its Annual Report a list of all bodies over which it has jurisdiction. Other amendments include clarifying the type of 'Commonwealth Authority' which may become subject to the Agency and requiring that the Agency give a copy of its report on an inquiry to the subject of that inquiry. National Crime Authority Act The amendments to be made to the National Crime Authority Act 1984 fall into two main categories. There are firstly amendments of a 'tidying-up' nature to clarify certain matters resulting from the very large number of amendments made during the passage of the Act through the Senate. For example, there are amendments resulting from the removal of the requirement for the Inter-Governmental Committee's approval in the case of Commonwealth references to the Authority. Thus, proposed new paragraph 9 (1) (aa) contains a specific reference to consultation between the Committee and the Commonwealth Minister in such cases. Consequential changes are proposed by the amendments in relation to Inter- Governmental Committee resolutions. Further, new sub-sections 10 (4A) to (4D) are to make provision for the Authority to request the Commonwealth Minister to refer matters to the Authority . This complements the existing provision in the Act for such requests in relation to State references. New sub-section 32 (8A) and associated amendments make necessary modifications to the procedure on certain applications to the Federal Court of Australia. The second main category of amendments comprises amendments to complement the ' underpinning' legislation to be enacted by the States to ensure that, where necessary, the Authority's powers are clearly grounded in State law. Thus, new section 35A is a provision to avoid 'double jeopardy' by providing that persons convicted of offences under either the Commonwealth Act or a State law will not be liable to be punished twice for the same act or omission. This will complement provisions to be made in State underpinning legislation. Further, new sub-section 56A is to make it clear that a State law may confer powers, functions or duties upon, or vest jurisdiction in, the Federal Court of Australia being powers, functions, duties or jurisdiction also conferred or vested by the principal Act. New section 32A is to provide that where the only relevant reference in force is one given by a Minister of a particular State, persons seeking review of decisions of, or requirements by, the Authority may apply to the Supreme Court of that State. The remainder of the amendments are further minor 'tidying-up' amendments or amendments consequential upon amendments in the two main categories discussed above. Taken as a whole, these amendments make useful improvements to the National Crime Authority Act 1984. National Library Act 1960 With the repeal of the Remuneration Act 1974, and the re-enactment of provisions to give effect to remuneration and allowances for members of the Library Council, the opportunity is also being taken to revise existing provisions in line with modern practice. Redundant provisions are repealed and the amendments which are of a machinery nature will modernise the legislation. Overseas Students Charge Act 1979 Currently students who are enrolled for periods when they do not attend courses (e.g. post-graduate students waiting marking of these and students undertaking a compulsory year of practical experience) are required to pay charges. As originally intended when the Overseas Students Charge legislation was enacted, such students would not be required, under the proposed amendments to section 6 of the Principal Act, to pay charges, because they do not use any resources provided by the Australian tax payer. Overseas Students Charge Collection Act 1979 At present, a temporary entry permit (TEP) may not be legally issued to cover any part of a calendar year during which a student will or proposes to incur a liability for a charge, until the charge is paid. Students must therefore pay the charge before receiving their examination results and before they know whether they will in fact be enrolling the following year. This situation needs to be remedied. The proposed amendment to section 6 of the Act will enable officers to issue TEPs to students for that part of the year which occurs before the date on which the charge becomes payable: For example a student intending to enter Australia to study in 1985 and who, examination results permitting, proposes to continue a course of study in 1986 may be issued with TEP to cover not only 1985 but also that portion of 1986 which occurs before the date on which the 1986 charge will become payable (usually 15 March). There will be no financial implication in connection with the amendment to the Act. Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 The Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 is being amended in order to provide for an increase in the number of Commissioners from five to seven and an increase in the term of appointment from three years to five years. The Commission is also being restructured in order to provide for a Departmental officer to be a member of the Commission. A Commissioner is also being appointed to represent officers and employees of the Commission. The Commission will now also include the Managing Director as a member of the Commission. The Act has been redrafted in relation to the rights and obligations of the Commissioners to bring the Commission into line with the precedent set by the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission and to accommodate the changes made to the structure of those Commissions. Obsolete forms of drafting have been replaced by more modern terminology. Patents Act 1952 The proposed amendments of section 41 and 58C of the Patents Act 1952 facilitate access to the information contained in patent specifications by requiring the preparation of abstracts of specifications. The proposed amendments of sub-section 58A (1), (3), (4) and (5) provide a simplified means of recognising amendments made from time to time to the text of the Patent Co- operation Treaty and of the Regulations annexed to that Treaty. The proposed amendments of sub-section 58A (2) provide for the Act to recognise certain amendments which may be made to international applications lodged under the provisions of the Patent Co-operation Treaty. Postal Services Act 1975 The amendments being made to the Postal Services Act 1975 are to allow an officer on probation to appeal against a decision to terminate the appointment. The amendment is to allow similar appeal rights that apply in other situations. An amendment is also being made which enables the Australian Postal Commission to charge an administration fee to a judgment creditor. The purpose of those amendments is to provide for rights to the Commission similar to those provided to the Commonwealth by virtue of section 64 of the Public Service Act 1972. Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 Section 23 of the Public Order (Prosecution of Persons and Property) Act 1971 deals with the prosecution of offences against the Act. Sub-section 23 (2) provides that proceedings for the prosecution of a person under the Act may only be instituted with the consent in writing of the Director of Public Prosecutions . This provision is being amended to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to delegate his power of consent. A consequential amendment is being made to sub -section 11 (3) of the Act. Public Service Act 1922 The various amendments proposed are: (1) to extend the period for which a person may act as a Secretary of a Department to 12 months. (2) to insure the power to select officers for the temporary performance of the duties of another office by including certain movements between offices which have not been provided for. (3) to extend the penalties for the offence of impersonation at examinations and tests by allowing a fine and imprisonment to be ordered. (4) the repeal of section 95 of the Act, which is redundant. (5) to amend a definition of ''Commonwealth authority'' to reflect changes in companies legislation. Public Service Reform Act 1984 The main amendments proposed are intended to put beyond doubt a provision that part-time offices may not be implemented without the consent of the officer holding the office and to amend a definition of ''promotion'' to include certain movements between offices which have not been provided for. The rest of the amendments deal with textual corrections and the relocation of some provisions to allow related provisions to appear together in this Act and in the Public Servic Act 1922. Radiocommunications Act 1983 The purpose of the amendment is to enable a range of penalties introduced for levying on the spot fines. Telecommunications Act 1975 The amendments being made to the Telecommunications Act 1975 are to allow an officer on probation to appeal against a decision to terminate the appointment. The amendment is to allow similar appeal rights that apply in other situations. An amendment is also being made which enables the Australian Telecommunications Commission to change an administration fee of a judgment creditor. Trade Practices Act 1974 A new section 65A is to be inserted in the Trade Practices Act 1974 to clarify the application of certain of the consumer protection provisions of that Act to the Media and the other persons who carry on business of providing information. Recent decisions of the Federal Court have suggested that a newspaper publisher may be taken to have engaged in conduct that is misleading or deceptive for the purposes of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act if the newspaper contains inaccurate information. The Government recognises the need to maintain a vigourous free press, as well as an effective and enforceable Trade Practices Act. In doing so, the Government recognises that, whilst the problem may have been highlighted by a defamation action, similar considerations apply in respect of action for negligent mis- statement and actions for injurious falsehood. The Government also recognises that the difficulties in this area are experienced not only by the main newspaper, magazine and television publishers, but also by a wide range of other people who provide information. New section 65A will operate to exempt the media (and other persons who engage in businesses of providing information) from the operation of those provisions of Division 1 of Part V of the Trade Practices Act which could inhibit activities relating to the provision of news and other information. The exemption is not available, however, in respect of a publication of information relating to goods, services or land of a kind supplied by the information provider, or relating to goods, services or land where the publication is made pursuant to a contract, arrangement or understanding with a body corporate related to a body corporate that supplies such goods, services or land. These provisions ensure that information providers are not exempt from the consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act in respect of the provision of information where they have what might be regarded as a commercial interest in the content of the information. In such cases, information providers must take the same responsibility for the accuracy of information as any other person who publishes information in trade or commerce. This can occur, for example, where a newspaper has agreed to publish a 'news' item about a product in exchange for the product supplier taking out paid advertising in that publication. The insertion of a new section 79A is to correct a major gap between the imposition and enforcement of a criminal sanctions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. Following the decision of the High Court in March 1984 in Thomas v. Ducret , 1984 ATPR 40-445 the criminal provisions of the Act are, in certain circumstances, unenforceable against individuals because they depend upon the existence of applicable State and Territory legislation. The amendment will provide a uniform system of enforcement of fines imposed under the Act. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 11 October. Clause 5 (Misleading or deceptive publications, &c.). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.20) —The last time the Committee met we were discussing amendments that the Government had moved to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984 with regard to advertising. I had moved two amendments the effect of which would be to take out of the relevant section in the principal Act the following words 'print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or'. The effect of those amendments would be that newspapers, television and radio people would not come under the Act for the purposes of this section, rather than do what the Government has moved in this Bill, which is to exempt not only the proprietors of the mass media but also political parties themselves . As I said during the second reading debate, the effect of this legislation, if allowed to stand in its entirety, will be that political parties can quite deliberately conceive advertisements, which they then place in the mass media, which are untrue, deceptive and calculated to affect the result of an election. In other words, we are taking out of the Act the ability of the law to stop those types of deceptive advertisements. I should like to make it very clear that it is a very stiff test to which these advertisements are being put. They have to be untrue, misleading and calculated to affect the result of an election . I also said during the second reading debate that if one looks at the various types of statements which may be caught by this legislation, one sees that it is possible that a whole range would not come under this legislation. That was acknowledged by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) when he gave evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The types of statements which purport to be statements about future intentions-that is, that the Australian Labor Party, if returned to government, will do X, Y or Z-would not be caught under the legislation as it now stands. The legislation would catch only a narrow band. It would catch those types of advertisements which say : 'In the party platform of the Australian Labor Party, it says that it is going to introduce a capital gains tax'. Let us take that as an example. That is definitely untrue. It is not a matter of political debate or a matter of forecasting future intentions, which would not be caught by the Act. It has one meaning only. It is untrue. It does not happen to appear in those types of documents. It has been argued by the Attorney, in his response to the second reading debate, that because we cannot catch everything, because we do not capture those types of statements about future intent, we should not bother with this. In other words, if we cannot reform the total world, let us not start; let us not even bother to put our foot upon the path of cleaning up political advertising, because we cannot do it all. It is an absurd argument which is unworthy of an Attorney-General. In any reform we have to start somewhere. We have to move slowly. We have to do what is able to be done under the legislation. In this circumstance what the Labor Party intends to do, with the support of the Liberal Party and the National Party, is to allow in this election campaign those parties to publish untrue and deceptive advertisements calculated to affect the result of the election. In other words, they are clearing the legislative hurdles so that they can have a free go. That is fine, but I think everyone in the electorate ought to know that is precisely what they are doing. That is precisely what they are setting out about. We believe that the Commonwealth Electoral Act has been drawn too widely because it has caught up people who publish political advertisements. We do not believe that those people should be caught up. Often they are unable to know whether a particular item is true or whether it is deceptive. They should be required to know because to do so they would have to intrude themselves into political judgments. We say that they should not be required to do that. That is why my amendment, if carried, would eliminate the publishers and the printers of the mass media or those who broadcast or televise. I do not believe the political parties should be exempt from trying, as much as they can, to make their advertisements true and not misleading and deceptive. We have put an imposition on other people out in the community to do this when they publish advertisements. We say: 'You should make true advertisements'. Why do we say that? We say that a person who produces an advertisement on a particular commodity should be truthful because the consumer does not have all the information. Very often it is privileged information. The consumer is not in a position to be able to work out whether a motor car does X, Y or Z. Most consumers do not have access to that type of information. It is privileged. Most electors do not have access to the type of information about which we are talking that will appear in these commercials. For example, let us consider the commercial that was published by the Australian Labor Party last week. How many electors have access to that detailed economic information? There are very few. What they are relying upon is that what the Australian Labor Party puts in its advertisements is true. I would have thought that the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party would want the electorate to know that what they were publishing was true and that there were legislative guarantees that it had to be true. I would have thought it was in their interests to do that. But instead they are going to go into a lavish, multimillion dollar campaign exercise to try to get rid of the very thing that makes it true, the very thing that gives it veracity; that is, the legislative guarantee that when they actually publish that advertisement the ordinary elector can rely on the veracity of the material contained in it. A democracy relies on two things: The first is the ability of people to have a free vote and express their free determined will as to who shall govern them in the next parliament, and the second, which is equally important, and on which democracy stands, is information. Without information a democracy is dead. Yet this Committee is now being asked to support a piece of legislation which, although it does not go all the way, at least makes a step upon the road. At least it says to political parties, when they sit in their back rooms with their highly paid multimedia consultants and devise an advertisement, that they have to have an additional thought in their mind, according to the legislation that currently stands; that is, they have to ask: 'Is this true?'. That seems to me to be a fair question to ask a political party to address itself to. It is fair to ask: 'Is this advertisement that the Australian Labor Party put in the papers on Thursday true? Are those accurate economic statistics?'. I would have thought that a political party would be very happy to have a legislative guarantee, to be able to say: 'It is true. It would be against the law to publish something that was untrue and deceptive.' People could then rely upon that assurance and could use the information published in making up their minds when they cast their vote. This Bill would enable the publication of an advertisement provided it was not defamatory or such like of individual people, provided it was of the type that the Australian Labor Party has already published. The Government now wants to be able to say: 'We can publish advertisements of that kind regardless of whether they are true. It does not make any difference'. The advertisement which was published last week fell under provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act as it currently stands, but what about advertisements which will be published next week when this Bill has been passed with the support of the Opposition parties- the Liberal Party and the National Party? People will not be able to rely upon the veracity of political advertisements. Last year the Government made a big advance on this issue. It took a step in the right direction. It has now got cold feet. It has now decided to withdraw. One has to ask: Why has it decided to go backwards on that legitimate reform? Why does it not want to compel political parties to guarantee the veracity of their advertisements? Is it because it is too difficult for the Labor Party to draft true advertisements? If it is going to print advertisements which are true and not deceptive and misleading, why is it worried about the existing legislation? If my amendments are not carried and this Bill is passed I believe that not only will the publishers of those items not be caught but also political parties will be freed from the yoke of having to worry about the truth of their advertisements. The argument has also been presented that it is too complex and too difficult to sort out one item from another in section 161 (2) of the Act, to which my amendments relate. I has been said that it would be too difficult for the courts to address themselves to this issue. That proposition has been canvassed in the majority report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. That proposition was based, so the Committee argued in its majority report, upon evidence given to it . I suggest that the evidence given to the Committee indicated nothing of the sort. Certainly, there was evidence to the effect that there are difficulties in this as there are in every item of the law. One has only to go into a court on any day to listen to the arguments put by learned counsel on law which to the average lay person looks pretty simple, which looks as though it means what it says, and after one has sat in the court for half an hour one suddenly discovers it probably does not mean anything of the sort. Every area of the law is like that. I am sure that the legal person who appeared before the Joint Committee would be capable of arguing in such a manner not only with this Act but with every other Act to which he may have been asked to address himself. I ask: Is it any more difficult to separate fact from fiction in this area of law than it is in the area of criminal law in general, in defamation law, in libel or custody cases? Are these areas more or less difficult? What about intellectual property cases? Are they more or less difficult than this area of law? There are difficulties in separating fact from fiction and fact from opinion in any area of the law. Why should we say: 'This area is too difficult. Let us not make a start'? I believe we ought to accept the amendments that I have moved. We should take the undue onus off the publishers of such material, leave it on the political parties and see what will happen. My prediction is that if these amendments and my subsequent amendment, amendment No. 3, were carried we would have very little difficulty. One of the things that would certainly occur is that for the first time the backroom people would be addressing themselves to an additional question, that is, the truth of their advertisements, whether they were seeking to deceive or influence the electorate in a way which was misleading or deceptive or likely to be misleading or deceptive. The reform made last year was reasonable and ought to be allowed to stand now. If my amendments are not accepted, I believe that we will have gone backwards and not forwards in trying to get clean and reasonable debate going which can inform electors about policies and issues they are concerned about during an election campaign in the area from which they get most of their information, that is, advertisements published by political parties. That is the area from which most electors find out most when they are making up their minds. Because of the gravity of this issue, we ought to accept the amendments I am proposing. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.37) —I support the amendments of my colleague Senator Macklin which would repair this thoroughly cynical, dishonest and tatty piece of legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984. Let us be quite clear about this legislation. To my mind it could not be better calculated to act against the interests of democracy and the Australian people. The more times they are told that and the louder it is said the better. It seems to me that in a reasonable and rational society it is sane and sensible that the law should provide that, when an election comes up, the advertising which is put in, as we know, to the tune of millions of dollars by the political parties, should inform the people reasonably of the truth. Let us be in no doubt about this: The Bill we are now debating proposes exactly the contrary. It proposes to remove from the present legislation a provision which applies sanctions to and controls false and misleading advertising which is calculated to affect the result of an election. The coincidence of this legislation arising now at the beginning of a crucial election campaign must be obvious to the public of this country and even to honourable senators. We are being told that political parties will be sanctioned to deceive the public. When this Bill is passed, which, we understand is to be soon, political parties will be entitled to devise advertising which is designed, mischievously, deliberately , cynically and dishonestly, to mislead the people of this country in the way they cast their votes. There could not be a more serious or dangerous erosion of democracy than that. Of course, Senator Macklin is perfectly right when he says that what came forward in the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform gave no substance to this proposal whatsoever. We are being told that, if a law is difficult to administer , one abandons it. What would happen if we went through the framework of legislation and said that because a law was difficult to police we had to throw it away? On that basis we could throw away the whole of the income tax law to start with. That is an absurd, ridiculous and thoroughly unwarranted imposition on the people of this country. At this stage, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, I implore honourable senators of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia not to connive at this. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is fond of saying that he is going to get through to the people of this country every day and every week from now until the election something or other about which he feels strongly. If this Bill passes we will do the same things and we will expect the media to support us and report us on a matter of such basic and vital importance. It would be an indictment of the National Party, the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party if they dared to pass this Bill in a completely cynical and dishonest sell-out of the principles of democracy. In other words, that will be another step downwards, another erosion of the powers that people ought reasonably to have. The Democrats are in favour of political advertising. We would like nothing more in this country than to see in the newspapers and the media balanced and reasonable advertisements which lay out the policies of political parties and their intentions for the future so that the electors can read them and know before they vote that their content is true. Is it being unduly idealistic to expect that some day in a reasonable world that will happen? But it cannot happen if we pass this Bill because we will take away the one slender, and admittedly difficult to administer, sanction which might encourage that process. Of course, Senator Macklin's amendments are the sane and rational solution because they remove the obligation from the media; in other words, they presumably accept an advertisement in good faith. There is no reason why they should be penalised for the dishonesty and cynicism of political parties. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and, I think, others in the Committee stage have said that this is okay, that there are laws on defamation, slander and so on which will control the situation. That is absolute nonsense. We know perfectly well that lawyers in the political parties are quite capable of drafting advertisements which will not bring any indication of defamation. To begin with, it is impossible to defame a large number of people. For instance, one cannot defame a whole political party of some hundreds of people because the class of people is too large. Therefore, it will be perfectly legitimate, with no sanctions, for advertisements to come out during this election campaign at enormous expense and which will misinform the people of this country about political parties. I wonder whether the political parties which are conniving in this have thought what the effect of it will be on the public. I do not believe that the people of this country are so stupid as to be taken in by this. It will become apparent to them that something rather strange and unpleasant has happened and that preposterous suggestions are being put forward in the media which cannot be justified. Of course, the net effect will be that the people of this country will understand that they should ignore that advertising completely. We will certainly be telling them that. I started doing so in the media last Friday by saying: 'Don't believe anything that you see in a political advertisement. You have no guarantee that it is true and you have every reason to believe that it is false'. Therefore, the effect of the huge spending on political advertising will be absolutely counterproductive because the public will then believe in the complete cynicism and dishonesty of the political parties and will take no notice of advertising; it will become a laughing stock and a joke. If the Government thinks that that is the sort of perverted and twisted world it wants, and if it thinks it is our responsibility to be here to create that type of perverted and twisted world, so be it. But I think it is about time that it looked again at its values and reasonably considered what might be the right and proper thing. I think it can be said plainly and without any equivocation that, if this Bill is passed, it will be a dismal and terrible sellout of the people of this country, and I warn the Government that it will be perceived as such, and with good reason. If the Government is committed, for its own devious reasons, to this Bill-Senator Macklin has questioned its motives by asking why it wanted to to this at the beginning of an election campaign and why it could not have been left until after this election-plainly it begs the question that the Government wants, and is probably already devising, untrue and misleading advertising. Untrue and misleading things have already been said by the Prime Minister and others in the debate on taxation. The Prime Minister of this country made untrue accusations about Senator Jack Evans and me, and as a result we have taken out a writ of slander against him. I believe there is a case for slander or we would not have taken out such a writ. But where a larger group of people were concerned, that recourse would not be possible. I question deeply the Labor Party's intentions. For that reason alone I suggest to the Liberal Party and the National Party-I give them the benefit of the doubt and say that I have no doubt that they are not planning that type of advertising -that if they pass this Bill they will be hoist on the same petard. They can be accused, and fairly, of conniving in a sort of 'liboral' way-to use a term coined by Dr Norman Sanders who will, after the election, be the Democrats senator for Tasmania-in other words, as a combination of the Labor, Liberal and National parties, to do something which is against the interests of the people. If the Liberal Party and the National Party want to be in that sort of deal, if they want to be in bed with the Labor Party on this matter, so be it. But I warn them that the people will not tolerate this. I suggest that the issue itself is too important as a matter of principle. It is not just a small administrative tidy up as the Attorney-General has tried to pretend. This is a matter of great principle. The morality of it is very suspect . On that basis alone, the Bill deserves not to be supported. On the other hand, Senator Macklin's amendments repair the position. I think they make a neat, appropriate and tidy piece of surgery on the Bill which will create a good piece of legislation instead of a bad piece of legislation. On that basis, I strongly urge honourable senators to support the amendments. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(10.46) — We have heard some fairly pious sermons today from the Australian Democrats on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill. Listening to them, one could believe that they are the only senators in this chamber with any integrity. I love the humility of the Australian Democrats when they come in here and lecture everyone else, put things in simplistic terms and put up straw men to knock over. I bet that Senator Mason has not gone back to the transcripts of the hearings of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. Has he? Of course, he has not. He has not read the evidence. He has stood up here and spoken only to the generality; he has not looked at the evidence and he has not looked at the issues involved. It is quite obvious from his contribution today that he is trying to create political brownie points. The Australian Democrats say that the legislation is being introduced simply so that the Government can go ahead with a program of misleading advertising before the next election. That is a disgraceful accusation. If the Australian Democrats knew anything about political history in this country they would know that our Party has been the victim of misleading and untrue advertising especially from the Democratic Labor Party and others. Therefore, when the Australian Democrats accuse us of deliberately bringing in legislation in order to be untruthful to the electorate I am forced not only to deny it but also to say that the Australian Democrats' integrity is in doubt because they make that accusation. As I said before, the fact is that history belies the possibility that the Australian Labor Party would do anything to encourage misleading, deceptive or untrue advertising. There are deeper problems than the simplicities that the Australian Democrats would have us believe. One of the difficulties we face in drawing up any legislation, particularly when it is in reference to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is determining what is opinion and what is fact. This is one of the basic philosophical questions that hundreds of philosophers in universities for hundreds of years have tried to tackle. On all advice we found that only untruths, not opinions, would be ruled out by this legislation. Trying to get definitions of fact and opinion- something that would not have occurred to Senator Mason-was almost impossible. It is very difficult to legislate for fairness, specially with a single line throw away in an electoral Act. If Senator Mason is so concerned with this issue and considers it a burning issue-it has been ever since Senator Jack Evans was a victim of it in 1980-where is his legislation? The Australian Democrats are good at running around the country saying that they have introduced legislation. We do not want one line legislation but detailed legislation that goes to the heart of the matter. Where is it? The legislation does not exist because the Australian Democrats have never bothered to consider it. Senator Macklin made a great point. He said he had reviewed the evidence. However, he was as quiet as a lamb when Michael McHugh appeared before the Committee and ripped the existing legislation to pieces. What did Senator Macklin say? He said virtually nothing at all. Michael McHugh cleaned Senator Macklin right up and left him without an argument. Senator Macklin then had to go away and come up with some rather dreary arguments that he appended to the dissenting report of the Committee. Why in fact would we be so anxious to move on the legislation just because an election is coming up? We considered this subject at the start of this year-when the reference was made. We have not considered it in the last couple of months. The Committee report was brought down in August, several months ago. Let us look at the basic reason for the legislation being here today. It is not that we are not concerned with fairness of advertising but that we are concerned with the possibility of the democratic process being totally overturned by the secondary considerations in the Act-the injunction route. We are concerned that virtually every advertisement can be put off the air or out of the newspapers by injunction. The last thing we want is an election campaign in which a minority group, desperate for publicity and unprincipled, uses the injunction route to get publicity. I wonder who in this chamber would use that particular tactic? No one else but the Democrats. It will be an absolute bonanza for the Democrats if they use it in the election campaign to get some publicity. They have no issues at all. They will just go around the countryside, like they always do, defining problems but giving no answers at all. They will use this as a method of getting cheap and tawdry publicity. A whole range of potential Shankeys would come out of the woodwork just to get some cheap publicity. Senator Mason accuses the Liberal and Labor parties of conniving on this issue. That is absolutely false. It is known to be a falsehood at least by Senator Macklin. There was no conniving on this matter. Members of the Committee had no preconceived ideas when this reference was made to the Committee and to impugn our integrity as the Democrats have today is absolutely disgraceful. We looked at the matter on its merits. We heard evidence from the Media Council of Australia and from all the media groups. The one thing that became clear was that we cannot just leave it to the courts to define what is fair and what is truthful. Senator Mason —But you do it all the time. Senator ROBERT RAY —We do not do it on all occasions. I do not know why Senator Mason does not listen for once; he is just too busy chortling. In a limited election period we have six or seven weeks to campaign, and normally much less. Once the injunction is there we will never get to the substantive matters in an election campaign. A whole range of advertisements may be put out of the media on the basis of injunction but later restored after a proper hearing. The problem of injunctions motivated the Electoral Reform Committee to recommend in the way it has. It was not that we do not believe there should be some fairness code, it is not that we believe there should not be truthful advertising; it is a matter of the method by which we can ensure it. I say again that we will not do it by way of a simple clause in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. We cannot legislate so simply for truthfulness in advertising, given all the definitional problems. Senators can come in here and accuse the major parties of being cynical and of conniving, and they can accuse my Party of planning untruthful election campaign advertisements. None of that is true; nevertheless, when a party is chasing only 10 per cent of the vote it is a good issue to get up on. My final point is that if the Australian Democrats are so anxious about truthfulness, why restrict it to advertisements? This is one of the big problems . They are saying that we have to be truthful in advertisements. I agree with that; they must not be deceptive. But of course newspapers, in their main articles, or the Australian Democrats out on the campaign stump, can be as untruthful or as misleading and deceptive as they like and there is nothing to stop them. So in effect what they are saying relates to the truthfulness of advertisements but if they were consistent they would take an approach to rule out all untruthfulness in campaigning, not just in advertisements. Why do they not do that? I am very much looking forward to the legislation the Australian Democrats bring in that will define which advertisements are truthful and which are not. I suggest that Senator Mason read the material put before the Electoral Reform Committee and read about the depth of problems associated with defining what is truth and what is not; what is fact and what is opinion. Once he does that, and once he gets over his headache, I suggest that he will realise that this problem is a little more complex than the sort of simple-minded reactive response that we get from the Democrats. The Democrats say there is a problem and that one line in legislation will automatically solve it. That sort of simplistic approach demonstrates why they normally get 8 per cent to 10 per cent of the vote. They wrinkle their brows and define the problems, but they never provide solutions. That is why they are seen as the whiners of politics. Before they come into this chamber and accuse us of collusion with the conservatives, before they accuse us of embarking upon a program of untruthful advertising, why do they not bring in some evidence for a change? Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.55) — The response by Senator Robert Ray was indeed interesting. However, it did not address the issues that were raised. Senator Robert Ray —What about the injunction? Senator MACKLIN —First he talked about the injunction. Obviously he has not bothered to look at my third amendment and he did not bother to listen to my speech during the second reading debate in which I said that we were willing to give away the right of individual injunction and leave it totally to the Australian Electoral Commission. Our bona fides show that we were not interested in having that right. I also went through the argument produced by the majority report, about which Senator Robert Ray has just interjected, and that is that the Australian Electoral Commission already has that right. It was put in there by the Labor Government to give the Commission that right. It already has an overriding right in its own regard. It no longer has to receive a reference; it can take action. Senator Robert Ray —It was not given that power specifically. Senator MACKLIN —It is in the Act and in the majority report, the first one. Senator Robert Ray agreed to giving it that power. So did I. Secondly, Senator Robert Ray raised the issues of the Media Council of Australia. I refer to the majority report, which Senator Robert Ray signed, referring to the Media Council . The report says in paragraph 2.36: Legislative prescription of standards of political advertising is supported by the industry itself. In evidence . . . the Media Council of Australia told the committee that 'The Media Council of Australia supports entirely the intent of section 161 (2) in terms that it produces or tends to produce honest, decent, truthful and legal advertising. The reference is to page 161 of the transcript. Next, Senator Robert Ray asked why we had not brought in legislation. Frankly, it was a promise made in 1983 by the Government, which introduced that legislation in the amendment Acts last year. The Government was happy with section 161 (2) and Senator Robert Ray voted for it, as we did. Secondly, he said that it could not be done by way of one simple line in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Government thought it could do so last year because it introduced the legislation. Senator Robert Ray also thought it could be done last year because he supported the legislation and voted for it. Senator Robert Ray next went on to deal with an argument that I have addressed on a number of occasions, that if one cannot reform the world one should not start. We do not believe that that is an effective way of dealing with any particular issue. We believe that one has to make a start somewhere, and obviously one starts with those things that are the easiest items to deal with. The easiest items to deal with happen to be advertisements. The reason is that under the Act they have to be authorised. In other words, a deliberate action has to be taken by someone to say that we are promulgating this particular piece of information. That is why the Electoral Act has an authorisation. That exists so that any other individual in the community can say: 'Who takes responsibility for this piece of information?' Other material, such as throw-away comments on talk-back and so on, are not items that are in any way as easy to deal with; they are much more difficult. If we are to address ourselves to those at a later stage, we will find ourselves with much more complex legislation. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its deliberations and in its first report addressed itself as to why it was going to look only at advertisements. It deliberately made the point that it would limit itself to advertisements because they could be dealt with as they had to be authorised. That is why, as Senator Robert Ray knows, having signed the first report, as I did, the Committee decided to consider only advertisements. It was somewhere to start. Senator Robert Ray —It is not in the first report. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry, it is. Senator Robert Ray —I did not sign the first report. Where is it in the first report? Senator MACKLIN —Did you not sign the first report? Senator Robert Ray —No. There was nothing on advertising in that and you know it . Senator MACKLIN —Senator Ray says he did not sign the first report. I simply refer people to the first report so they can see whether he signed it. We believe that we can reform the world, we can take some step, we can move somewhere. We have to remove the problems, put to us by the Media Council, amongst others, that would be confronted by publishers of advertisements. As Senator Robert Ray knows, the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform reconsidered this problem because in a number of submissions from the media it was pointed out that section 161 (2) would be very difficult to deal with. With respect to that section media representatives said: 'We will have to address ourselves to it in a variety of ways. We may have to intrude on campaigning by political parties and hold up advertisements for as long as a week before we can print them because we have to check'. Newspaper representatives said that one difficulty they had was that if they published an advertisement and sought to use that they did not know it was untrue, if they had published some time in the past some story on the item it could very well be held in evidence against them. The majority of the Committee, with whom I agreed, quite rightly said that that was too onerous an obligation to put on publishers of advertisements and would not allow the smooth running of an election campaign. The Australian Democrats agree with that finding. It is not an imposition which can be supported by the media operation. The inclusion of section 161 (2) in the legislation caused some considerable discussion, to which Senator Ray alluded, during the Committee's hearings by learned counsel about the difficulties of implementing it. I concurred with that . Indeed, if Senator Robert Ray read my speech on the second reading of this Bill he would see that I addressed that quite specifically. I acknowledge the difficulties of implementing this section, in the same way as we acknowledge the difficulties of implementing an enormous range of sections not only in this Act but also in others. In making that point Senator Mason used the example of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I do not think anyone in the community or in business would disagree that it is an enormously complex and difficult Act. We have only to consider section 260 and the debates and discussions that went on around it to see that there was an extraordinary range of legal argument about that section. That argument has been proceeding now for some eight or nine years. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has been involved in it, as have the various special prosecutors and commissioners appointed by him. The previous Government, the Crown Law Office, and, at one stage, the High Court, were involved in it. There are sections of all Acts which are difficult to implement, but the intent of section 161 (2) of the Act is clear. The only way to find out whether it will hold up is the only way we can find out whether section 260 would hold up-that is, test it in the courts. In the same way that we criticised the previous Government for not testing in the courts section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, we would also criticise this Government if section 161 were not tested in the courts. If it turns out to be deficient, if we accept various arguments presented on one side or the other, then the Government and this Parliament would address themselves to the result of that court case. It would address itself to how we would then need to refine and reform that section. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of the Attorney-General and his Department to come up with a solution to any problems that may be posed by a subsequent court case that found this provision deficient in some respect. At least if it is left in the intent of the Parliament remains clear. The intent of the Parliament, if my amendment were accepted, would be to place an obligation on a political party , an individual or a company that authorised an advertisement to ensure that that advertisement is not untrue or deceptive in such a way as to affect the result of an election. That seems to us to be a good intention. We believe that the Government's intention was good when the electoral legislation was passed last year. I again point out that this provision was put into the legislation by this Labor Government. It was not in the legislation before this Government came to power. It was introduced into the legislation, we believe, in fulfilment of a promise that the Government made at the last election. That seemed to us quite reasonable. In the light of subsequent submissions made to us by the various media councils that there were difficulties in relation to this matter, the item was put aside. We believe that if the amendments that I have circulated are accepted that intent will remain strong. It will remain there as a check if someone transgresses the legislation in relation to a factual matter. I refer to the point that Senator Robert Ray made in this regard. The Australian Labor Party published an advertisement last week. I am quite happy to use that advertisement as an example. The advertisement asked: 'Will facts change a Liberal voter's mind?' It was asking: Will facts change a person's mind ? Senator Robert Ray said: 'We cannot distinguish between facts and opinions'. I think we can. The Australian Labor Party, in placing large advertisements, thought we could. It was saying to the people who read those advertisements: ' Here are some facts about our economic record. Read them and vote on them'. I would have thought it was in the interests of the Australian Labor Party in that regard to be able to say: 'They are facts because if these statements were untrue and deceptive we would not be allowed to put them in'. I would have thought that was a pretty good back-up to a campaign that anybody was about to launch. In no way are our amendments simplistic. The Australian Democrats are not putting a proposal; we are merely saying: Let us stay with the Australian Labor Party's original proposal in regard to political parties. I remind Senator Robert Ray that we do not have to defend that. It was not our proposal; it was that of his Party. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(11.08) —I congratulate Senator Macklin on his second speech. I found his contributions most rational and well argued, in great contrast to both his first speech and Senator Mason's speech. Senator Macklin has now addressed himself to the legislation sensibly. He has given up the electioneering cap that he had on before. In his last 15-minute contribution there was no suggestion of the Australian Labor Party introducing this legislation so that it can have a misleading advertising campaign. Senator Macklin does not believe that; it is just a bit of electioneering, a bit of excitement that caught him and me up. I do not believe that Senator Mason, however, would make any such retraction. In the last contribution no accusations came out of collusion between the Labor and Liberal parties because, of course, the Australian Democrats in their heart of hearts know that there is none. I want to say three or four things. Firstly, Senator Macklin said that there was reference to this matter in the first report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform. There was no such reference and he knows it. This section was put in the Act by another department, quite obviously. It did not emanate from the first report, which I signed. What I was saying before was that I did not sign a report that contained this recommendation. I challenge Senator Macklin to read the whole of the first report and to find one reference to this section. There is no such reference. Senator Harradine —From another department. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, it came in via another department. Senator Harradine —Attorney-General's? Senator ROBERT RAY —Probably. All departments have a contribution to make when legislation such as the Electoral Act is up for amendment. But it did not emanate out of the first report. Senator Macklin asked why I voted for it. I am sorry; I am fallible. I did not realise the consequences of section 161 (2) taken into account with the injunction process. I voted happily to put in the injunction process. I voted happily to have the Electoral Commission have an independent approach to the injunctive process, but not specifically for it to have injunctive powers relating to section 161 (2). I turn to the second point that has not been fully addressed. I may have said in excitement that Senator Macklin cannot determine the difference between fact and opinion. If I said that, I retract it. All I said was that it is not a simple area to determine what is even a fact because in regard to facts the old question of statistics, more statistics and more lies is posed. They can be very deceptive if used in a particular way. The last point-and a good point-made by Senator Macklin was that if we take out the injunction process, the matter does not become as dangerous to the electoral process. I concede that point. But unfortunately, it is a conundrum. If we take out the injunction process, we have nothing left. Even in regard to a series of fines on a political party, if Senator Macklin were in a position-and I am not saying that he is-where he thought that one big, last, lying advertisement could win him the election, the $5,000 fine would mean nothing especially to members of an affluent party, such as those who sit opposite, it means absolutely nothing. Senator Macklin —Were you referring to us? Senator ROBERT RAY —No, I was not. By a process of elimination I think he might even be able to deduce to whom I may have been referring. So we have this conundrum: Without the injunction process, it really is useless legislation. With the injunction process-I do not think that Senator Macklin has addressed this point-it can be manipulated. Let us assume that he is pure and that he does not manipulate it. There are plenty of people who would have manipulated that process and it is on that point that this report was centred. I say again that I found Senator Macklin's latest contribution a rational one. Devoid of the accusation that we will embark on an untruthful advertising campaign-I absolutely deny that we will do so-and now that he has divorced himself from the accusation that we are in some way in collusion with the Liberal Party, I find much of what he said is correct. But I return to the point that I do not think it is up to the courts to make a decision based on such a small section in the Act. I think there needs to be definition as to what contributes to being untruthful and what contributes to being deceitful. It is not in the current Act . It is an area that we, I would have thought, had indicated when Senator Macklin was present at meetings of the Committee that we would look at. But before we can deal with it, it will need in-depth legislation, not legislation with such a wide-open interpretation as is contained in the existing legislation . Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.13) —Senator Robert Ray's contribution indicates to me that what has been said by Senator Macklin does have a great deal of validity and that if we had time to develop more provisions which would clarify what was the purpose of putting the new section 161 into the legislation, we ought to do so. Apparently it is now not challenged that what is being proposed by Senator Macklin-that is, to retain in essence what was so recently put in the legislation-is the correct way for the Parliament to proceed. I submit that it is the correct way for the Parliament to proceed. When the Commonwealth electoral legislation was being debated previously, there were amendments to take out the bulk of Part XVII concerning electoral offences. If we refer to the Commonwealth Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill we see that sections 154 to 162 of the principal Act were repealed. I had in mind that, if the House of Representatives were still here, we should pass a further amendment and include some of those clauses which were repealed by the Commonwealth electoral amendment legislation. We were given to understand-certainly the inference was there-that nothing that was being placed in the new legislation, and thus repealed in the old legislation, would undermine in any way the political or civil rights of individuals or groups within the electoral system. Senator Gareth Evans —Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. As I understand it, we are debating a particular amendment moved by Senator Macklin in relation to the deceptive advertising provision. I think it might better suit the convenience of the Committee, if not necessarily the Standing Orders, were Senator Harradine to wait just a moment until we dispose of that amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —On the point of order, I was listening very closely to Senator Harradine. I thought that he was in actual fact relating to a later clause in the Bill. We are referring to clause 5 and the amendments that have been moved by the Australian Democrats. Senator HARRADINE —I go on to say that what was done in the new section 161 was to repeal the old section 161 and replace it. I acknowledge and I accept your ruling and I will come to that matter at a later stage in the Committee debate. I warn people that I will be referring to the repeal of old section 158 and the introduction of a new section 159, how it has undermined the civil and political rights of people in this country, or how it could be argued to have undermined the civil and political rights of people in this country. I observe your ruling, Madam Temporary Chairman, and will confine myself to section 161. Old section 161 contained the words that are now complained of by Senator Robert Ray. The old section 161 dealt with: Printing, publishing or distributing any electoral advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote. As we all know, that has been defined by the courts to relate to the actual casting of the vote by an elector. It is apparent that the Government, through whatever department it came, believed that that was too narrow. An amendment was drafted to the legislation and that amendment is in the form which now reads: A person shall not, during the relevant period in relation to an election under this Act, print, publish or distribute, or cause, permit or authorize to be printed, published or distributed, any electoral advertisement containing a statement- (a) that is untrue; and (b) that is, or is likely to be, misleading or deceptive. The Government now proposes to delete that provision. Senator Macklin proposes to retain that provision but in a way that makes the persons who are responsible for preparing and authorising the advertisements to be responsible. It enables candidates who are directly affected to have immediate redress. The argument that was raised by Senator Ray in his contribution, namely, that it is very difficult to get to the facts and that really the concept of fact is a very difficult concept for the mind to grapple with, is rather strange. I would have thought that that was existentialism in its extreme. The question 'what is truth' has been bandied about over the centuries. Of course, there is such a thing as objective fact. There is objective truth. The Government is committed to truth in advertising. It has observed that principle in legislation dealing with consumer protection. Now, when it comes to the question of electoral advertising, we see an attempt to take out that principle. What is suggested here was suggested in the House of Representatives, where a Government spokesman said: Basically, we are recommending the repeal of the section, thus leaving the decision as to whether political advertising is true or false to the electors and to the law of defamation. Let us look at those two aspects. There are no votes in the law of defamation-no votes at all. Letting the people judge might be all right if all other things are equal. However, all other things will not be equal in this election-for example, public funding in addition to all of the other money that is available to the major political parties. Roughly $3.6m will be made available by way of public funding to the Australian Labor Party, $3.3m to the Liberal-National Party Oppo- sition-- Senator Robert Ray —It would be a bigger gap than that. Senator HARRADINE —I am going on past figures. Perhaps half a million dollars will go to the Australians Democrats and about $9,300 or so to my group. Let us have a look at a situation where one of the major political parties indulges in the distribution of leaflets which it authorises and which contain statements that are untrue. Senator Robert Ray —It's only advertisements. Senator HARRADINE —They are advertisements. Let us consider the honourable senator's definition in terms of a full page advertisement in a newspaper or, worse still, a 60-second advertisement on television which contains misleading or untrue statements. What chance to minor groups or independents have to overcome that disadvantage? What chance have they got to allow the public to be informed of the truth of the matter? They do not have any chance, so all other things are not equal. They are not even equal insofar as Australian Broadcasting Corporation free time is concerned. We could have a situation, as occurred in a previous election, in which ABC free time was used to make, by inference, an untrue statement about another candidate and that other candidate was not permitted in ABC free time the opportunity to dispel that incorrect statement. About three weeks ago I asked the General Manager of the ABC, Mr Whitehead, what his proposals were in respect of free time. He has not as yet responded. Let us go to the question of the referenda, bearing in mind that the move by the Government to take out of existing legislation the requirement for advertising to be truthful also applies to referendum legislation. I should think that defamation would not apply in that respect. We are told by the Government to leave it to the defamation laws and to the electors, but a statement in free time could be made, for example, about the referendum by the political parties. What availability is there for other people who may have exercised their rights and constitutional duties in this place to vote for or against the legislation to be part of the preparation of the case? While I am on that subject, I might ask the Attorney-General-- Senator Gareth Evans —Spare us. Senator HARRADINE —No, I must ask the Attorney-General whether the free time made available on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation through taxpayers' funds for the Yes and No cases is to be made available to the political parties or to those who exercise their constitutional responsibility in this place to vote for or against the proposition so that they can be part of the preparation of the appropriate documents. Senator Peter Rae —The latter was the case in the 1977 referendum. Senator HARRADINE —I thank the honourable senator for that information, but I am just asking the Attorney-General-I have Mr Whitehead in mind-whether he has departed from that on this occasion. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you reckon you can con the Opposition into giving you a guernsey on this? Senator HARRADINE —No, I do not. Will the Attorney respond to that direct question? I simply say that Senator Macklin has made out a very good case for retaining the provision that was so lately put into the legislation and that was adopted unanimously by this Parliament, not only by the Senate but also by the House of Representatives. The ink is hardly dry on the statute and the Government is trying to take it away, and it is trying to take it away just before an election. I think the onus is on it to say why it is doing that. It is just not proper and makes no sense to leave this matter to the laws of defamation and for the people to judge when all other things are not equal. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.28) —The matter of deceptive electoral advertising seems to have generated a degree of passion, at least as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, some of it, it must be said, particularly that coming from the mouth of Senator Mason, utterly unfounded insofar as it involves imputations against the integrity of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and I think was sufficiently answered in that respect by Senator Robert Ray, and some of it, on the other hand, a little more intelligently based, particularly in the form in which it came from Senator Macklin, and certainly raising matters on which it is possible for reasonable men and women to differ. I wish on this occasion only to repeat what I said in my second reading reply in this matter; that is, while I have some sympathy with the point that Sentor Macklin was making on this occasion, I accept on balance the majority decision of the Joint Select Committee, and of the Government in accordance with that decision, that any attempt at guaranteeing truth in political advertising is probably destined to legislative failure and is an attempt better left unmade. I think the short answer to most of the kinds of problems that were raised by Senator Macklin when he asks for a rationale for the repeal of this provision is as follows: To the extent that electoral advertising is extreme, blatant and easily actionable under the original proposed legislation, it is not likely to have a very compelling effect on voters; it is likely to be regarded as self- serving puffery of a kind that ought not to really justify the full guns legislatively blazing of the kind here proposed. On the other hand the advertising in question of the more insidious variety which is likely for that reason perhaps to be more effective really does create very difficult problems of law enforcement than the very difficult problems associated with dealing with questions of prediction or of opinion to which Senator Robert Ray referred in his response. I acknowledge, finally, the point that was made by Senator Macklin several times in his various contributions in this debate. The mere difficulty of legislating for something is not in itself to be regarded as a universal justification for not proceeding with such legislation. Were that to be so, there would be much that was desirable that would never reach the statute book, but it does become, I would suggest to him, a fairly compelling reason when one is dealing, as here, with a very sensitive issue of principle which raises squarely the proper extent of free speech, freedom to publish and the rights of individuals to participate robustly in political debate. It is because this whole question of deceptive advertising is one that is raised in that particular context that it is a more difficult exercise than most similar legislative exercises that confront us and it is a consideration that becomes, I think, relevant when one is trying to determine whether, at the margin, there really is a case for proceeding with legislation which is not likely to be effective in the areas where it would be of most utility. In a nutshell, that is the reason why the Committee and the Government has come down as it has. Many other particular points of detail could be raised, but I think they have been sufficiently dealt with in what has been by now a very protracted second reading and Committee stage debate on this matter. I am not yet in a position to give Senator Harradine a specific answer to the particular question he raised about the way in which free time will be organised on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the context of the referendum campaign. I am having that matter checked at the moment and will endeavour to provide information as soon as possible, hopefully in the course of this debate but otherwise by an answer delivered to him through appropriate channels later on. I commend the existing provisions of the legislation to the Committee and urge that it reject the Macklin amendments. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.34) —I have not spoken in the Committee debate on this matter and I should mention the Opposition's view again. I spoke on behalf of the Opposition in the second reading debate and I indicated that the Opposition supported the proposals in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill to repeal the relevant sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act which were inserted last year in regard to misleading and deceptive advertising. Senator Macklin's amendments to the Bill have now proposed a middle way, namely, to relieve the publisher, printer or distributor of such material from any liability but to retain liability on the part of the authors of the offending material. The Opposition will not support Senator Macklin's amendments because we believe that this is not an appropriate way of controlling the type of advertising in an election campaign which is the subject of this legislation. Last year relevant sections were inserted in the new Act. The Joint Committee on Electoral Reform has had the opportunity of considering the matter in greater detail this year than last year. It recommended the repeal of those sections, albeit only introduced for the first time last year. It is a pity that it has proceeded in that way, namely, that the relevant sections which were inserted last year in the new legislation are now being repealed within 12 months or so. However, clearly the Joint Committee has had the benefit of a more detailed consideration of the problem this year as opposed to last year. Incidentally, it had a very big task last year and many other major matters were the subject of its recommendations. For a number of quite good reasons the Joint Committee has recommended that this provision should be repealed and should not be part of our electoral laws, that there should be a prohibition, in general terms, about misleading advertising in an election campaign and that there should be remedies of a legal kind to deal with it during an election campaign. The Opposition accepts that view-I said this when I spoke in the second reading debate-broadly for the reason that this type of advertising is extremely difficult to deal with in a legal way. It is not the sort of advertising of a product which has certain clear statements of fact. As has been pointed out, electoral advertising is often of a very abstract kind, such as predictions of what might happen and so forth. It would be very difficult to assess whether such advertising actually can be held to be misleading, deceptive or indeed even true or untrue. We believe that the proper sanction against the use of this type of advertising, the best brake on that type of electioneering-we are certainly not condoning misleading and deceptive advertising in elections-is the informed public opinion which we fortunately enjoy in this country. The sanction is the judgment of the electors themselves in respect of that type of advertising. They are the best judges of these matters and they are the best judges of the parties and candidates who are contending for their support. If political parties or candidates engage in a totally extravagant type of advertising which is way beyond reasonable bounds of prediction as to what may happen if the other party is elected and so on, which we are quite familiar with, or indeed if they engage in blatant untruths about the other party or its candidates, the electorate, with the modern communications available to it, is quite able to make a judgment and the other parties are quite able to correct it. We are in an age of instant communication. If there is an advertisement one day of an offensive kind, almost before that day is out, comments and objections will be made on radio and television. So one does not even have to wait until the next day to get a correction or a counter advertisement in the print media. If that is necessary, it can be achieved quite quickly. It seems to me that these days a debate can start up within a matter of minutes, if not hours, after such material is published. If it is of a very offensive character party leaders will be engaged in that debate almost instantly on radio and on television. As I said, means of communication are such that this sort of matter can be dealt with instantly and effectively by those who complain about it. In the end it is for the electors to judge which side is correct and the electors should judge the advertising. We think that these are the most effective sanctions and the most effective remedies against this type of election abuse, which cannot be satisfactorily dealt with in the way the present Act stands, by providing for more legal type remedies. For those reasons we support the proposal and will oppose the amendments moved by Senator Macklin. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(11.41) —I wish to make a brief and fervent plea to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and to the Government to reconsider what they are doing with this amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. As the person who was the subject of a very expensive, bitter and vitriolic attack through paid advertisements in Western Australia in 1980-- Senator Robert Ray —This will not stop it; that is the point. Senator JACK EVANS —Senator Ray indicates, quite rightly, that without the injunction procedures that Senator Macklin will move later on, it would not be possible to stop that sort of thing from taking place, but there are remedies available to us. My appeal to the Attorney-General is to hold back this misleading advertising provision. Let us have one election where we can take a small step forward to counter the misleading advertising that takes place in elections. We are about to have probably the most expensive election campaign that has ever been held in this country. It could well turn into a Nixon type campaign. Most of us here will recall that Nixon got to be President of the United States of America through a gross, very expensive and misleading election campaign. This is what, with the support of all parties in this chamber, we endeavoured to reform in the legislation which was passed only a year ago. It addressed the very problem from which I suffered, that is, that despite the opinions of a lot of people that there were provisions to protect individuals and parties from deliberately misleading advertisements, the High Court of Australia ruled that there was no such provision. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform looked at this and came down with a recommendation that we provide, at the very least, some protection to politicians and political parties against other politicians and political parties-and individuals outside those parties, incidentally-from grossly misleading advertisements. I think this amendment to the legislation is being rushed through for reasons that nobody can really assess. Senator Mason hinted that it might be because there are quite obvious benefits in it for the major parties and therefore they have got together and agreed that it will be a good thing, that this will be another weapon to use against minor parties and independents. Whether that is the reason for rushing it through at this time, before it has had a chance to be tried before the electorate, I do not know. But I do know that the Australian Democrats, through Senator Macklin, have come up with some amendments that would make the Act workable. It would be possible to test that legislation through an election, and if it was found wanting at that stage, it would be possible to modify it following the election which we are facing on 1 December. Therefore I appeal to the Attorney-General to think again about the damage that is going to be done by repealing what was a good piece of legislation, subject to some modification, by rejecting what was a very worthwhile endeavour to get some truth and honesty into political advertising. Even if we cannot get it into the political cut and thrust out in the electorate or in the two Houses of the Parliament, at least let us take that step forward which would give us a chance of cleaning up the advertising which takes place during an election campaign, which is quite patently aimed at misleading electors and which they will discover only after the election if we do not provide some measures to prevent that from taking place. After the election, as we have all found out to our pain and suffering in the past, is far too late for the electorate to discover that it has been misled. Senator GARETH EVANS(Attorney-General)(11.45) —Senator Jack Evans's heartfelt plea falls on ears that, while not wholly unreceptive, are slightly hard of hearing on this present occasion. I regret that the Government's decision on this matter will stand. I rise to my feet once more simply to give Senator Harradine an answer to the point that he raised earlier about free time for the referendums, although what this has to do with the present subject under debate is a matter for some speculation. The situation is that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation proposes to allot 30 minutes each for the proponents of the Yes case on the one hand and the proponents of the No case on the other hand , not by reference to particular parties but by reference to how people voted here in the Parliament. Senator Macklin —Does that include us? We have not been asked about anything yet, even the preparation of the case. It probably went against the Act, I would have thought. I believe it had some reference to us. Senator Durack —You voted against us. Senator Macklin —We voted for it. Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Democrats voted for it but they were opposed to the substantive content of the-- Senator Macklin —We should at least have been asked. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Macklin, that is a matter you can debate with the Attorney-General at another time. Senator GARETH EVANS —I think Senator Macklin was making a fairly formal point when he made it absolutely clear that the content of the referendums was opposed , albeit that their being put to the people was in fact supported. I hear what he says and I do not think there is any legal substance to the point he makes, although he may claim otherwise. The only matter that seems to be not quite fully resolved so far as the allocation of free time is concerned, is whether the 30-minute allocation is capable of division into several bits. That would be a matter apparently for the proponents of the respective cases to agree among themselves. I wish Senator Harradine the best of British luck in seeking to gain a chunk of some possible part of the No case for himself. Senator Jack Evans —Who determines that time allocation? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a matter for the proponents to determine the content of it. Senator Macklin —If they are not even asked, how will they get a leg in? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a matter for the ABC-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! That is nothing to do with the amendments before the chamber at the moment. Senator GARETH EVANS —We can pursue the matter in Question Time should the honourable senator wish to do so, but for the moment that is as much information as I am able to give to the honourable senator in the time available. Apparently the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ) ten days ago conveying the ABC's decision and the ABC is in the process of writing to all those who have inquired about the allocation of time, laying out the ground rules. I have not seen a copy of any such correspondence. I am not in a position to inform honourable senators further, but I will endeavour to make sure that that information, in a slightly more detailed form, is made available as soon as possible to honourable senators here in the chamber today, if that will satisfy them. I hope that we can now proceed to a vote on this rather overdue matter of the deceptive advertising. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Macklin's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John McIntosh, G. D. Chaney, F. M. Maguire, G. R. Childs, B. K. Messner, A. J. Coates, J. Missen, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Primmer, C. G. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F. Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A. Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M. Foreman, D. J. Scott, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.55) —I had circulated another amendment relating to the injunction which I did not move, because it was consequential on the other amendments being accepted. However, I wish to put further questions to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in relation to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984. First I would like the Attorney-General to clarify the situation relating to postal votes which are generally available from the close of nominations. As the Committee is aware, the Commonwealth Electoral Act has now been changed so that 48 hours must intervene between the close of the election and the registration of the list of candidates for the Senate. It seems odd that an elector could vote in an election and register his vote in the top half of the Senate ballot paper prior to the registration of a list of candidates for any political party. I would like the Minister to clarify that point. The second point I raise relates to the naming of electorates. There have been some changes to the names of electorates and, of course, some new names for the new electorates. Some of the names which were first mentioned were objected to and subsequently changed. Some of those names were changed a second time, that is, when the final electorates were drawn up names were included which had never been canvassed previously and which have, in at least one case, caused considerable embarrassment and shown, I think, a fair amount of insensitivity to some of the electors within those electorates. I ask the Attorney whether the naming of electorates can, at the second stage, allow for some further objections since it has nothing to do with the distribution. A further provision to allow an objection to names surely would not at that stage cause very much difficulty. The last matter to which I refer relates to an item on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation PM program last week in which the person who was conducting the program said that at the time the electoral blackout on the reporting of elections was being discussed, nobody had raised the issue about Western Australia. I refer honourable senators to 3 June 1983 when in discussions on the blackout I raised the very problem of Western Australia. In addition I have corresponded with the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) since that time. I have attempted to raise with the Minister the subject of that report. On 1 June 1983 I wrote to the Minister, reminding him of his undertaking that the Government would reform the Electoral Act to make sure that results could not be broadcast until the close of polling. He replied that that would be dependent on a fairness reference from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. On 30 November I wrote to the Minister stating that I had not heard anything; the Minister replied on 8 December and I got another letter on 21 December. So there has been some considerable discussion in my pursuit of attempting to change the Act so that the results of an election cannot be broadcast in Western Australia prior to the close of polls there. I have had a most extraordinary runaround and most extraordinary propositions have been put as to how complex this would be. I actually drafted an amendment which was very simple. We are not seeking to stop anybody from finding out what is happening in the eastern States . Any elector in Western Australia has always been able to find out what is happening in the eastern States. Electors can get on the telephone if they want to, they can listen to shortwave radio or to Radio Australia. But, as we have been discussing in this Bill, the vast bulk of the population receive their information through the normal channels of communication, through the normal mass media. All that we want to do is stop a bandwagon effect operating from the eastern States to Western Australia. I think it was agreed at the time by all political parties that this was a good idea, yet no action has been taken. We are now in a situation whereby the Electoral Commission has seemingly expressed its view-if the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is to be believed on that item-that people should not broadcast and some of the broadcasters over in Western Australia are now considering whether they should abide by the wishes of the Electoral Commission. They do not have to because there is no legislation on that matter. I believe that this is a loophole in the Act; it is something that we should have done at the time. It is a matter that I raised at the time. I believe that between 3 June 1983 and the present time, something should have been done to rectify that situation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.02) —Senator Macklin has raised three issues and I will respond to each of them as best I can. The first concerns the availability of postal ballot papers for the forthcoming election. There has always been some delay in the availability of printed ballot papers for postal voting immediately after the close of nominations due to the time taken to print the papers. The only facility immediately available has been the use of open ballot papers on which the candidates' names have been written or typed. This facility will still be available. For this election nominations will close at 12 noon on Tuesday, 6 November, and Senate groups will have until 12 noon on Thursday, 8 November, to register group voting tickets. It is expected that printed ballot papers will be available by Monday, 12 November. As to the open ballot paper facilities, they will be available for Senate voting from either late Thursday afternoon, 8 November, or Friday morning, 9 November, depending on how long it takes to sort out and respond to the applications for group voting that have come in by midday Thursday. Time must be allowed for the necessary information to be passed to divisional returning officers to enable them to prepare any open ballot papers that are required. As to the point about naming, I am in the position to say only this: Under the amended Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 once an augmented Electoral Commission has made a determination by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of names and boundaries of divisions, that is really the end of the matter. This has occurred in Victoria and there is no provision for a review of names or for reopening the question. The Australian Electoral Commission will report in due course to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) on a number of matters arising from the redistribution and it may be assumed that the consequences of changes put to and made by the augmented Electoral Commission will be raised in that context with a view possibly to some further legislative amendment in that area. The final matter that Senator Macklin raised was the blackout as it affects Western Australia. It is true that there has been some communication with Senator Macklin over a period on this issue, but I do not think it is quite fair to describe that as he did, as being given the runaround. Clearly the matter is of some difficulty and initially the response given to Senator Macklin, which he seemed cheerful enough to accept, was that the matter would be looked at in the light of the report which is to be received from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on the 'fairness' reference. That 'fairness' issue has been put in abeyance pending the receipt of the second report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The letter from the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) on 21 December to Senator Macklin made it clear that as far as the Government was concerned we wanted the Joint Select Committee to review the problem in the first instance. I understand that submissions were made to that Committee on this issue, but it did not deal with it in its second report. I am further advised by the Minister that he spoke to the Committee in the last couple of weeks and, I am not sure who, the Chairman I suppose, has said that the Committee will definitely consider this question when it next convenes. The Committee simply did what it perceived as the most urgent things first in the context of the present campaign, and regrettably the matter with which Senator Macklin is concerned has not yet been addressed. It should be said that it is by no means a clear-cut issue as to where the ultimate merits of this issue lie. While it would be desirable of course to get uniformity across the country, the difficulty is that results could still be obtained from eastern States-even with a blackout of a selective kind in the West-by way of shortwave radio, Radio Australia broadcasts, subject to appropriate ionospheric conditions, and of course with the satellite broadcasting anticipated from 1985, nationwide simultaneous coverage. I draw Senator Macklin's attention to the fact that the United States of America has lived with this problem-as it is alleged to be by the Democrats-for some time and seems to have come up with the conclusion that there is no realistic solution to it. So it may be that the matter is not quite as open and shut or as black and white as Senator Macklin thinks, but I do not in any way want to be taken as pre-empting the decision, first of the Joint Select Committee on this matter and then ultimately of the Government. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(12.07) —I wondered whether at this stage of the Bill I could raise with the Attorney-General the question of the Government's attitude to departmental advertising. Up until now, we have had some misleading advertisements. We have been viewing with some concern the advertisements from the Department of Health, in particular, about Medicare. I wondered whether the Government is prepared to say whether it will continue to use taxpayers' funds to promote its own causes, or whether, now that the date of the election has been announced by the Prime Minister, the Government might agree to do the right thing by the people of Australia and stop using their funds to promote government policies. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.08) — I wish to add to what Senator Lewis has just said. In particular, I refer to the Senate ballot paper. As honourable senators would know, the decision of the Senate last year, which I opposed, was to have a completely new Senate ballot paper on the top of what would be a series of boxes under which there would be the names of parties or groups, but only those parties or groups that are able to register with the Australian Electoral Commission. The second part of the ballot paper would be similar to the ballot paper that existed in previous elections. Many electors this time will be startled by the fact that they will be handed a completely different type of ballot paper. They can go into the polling booth and place a number 1 in the box at the top of the ballot paper and that will satisfy their obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I believe that that system is unfortunate. It has required me, for example, to register my name as a group for the purpose of obtaining a box on the top of the ballot paper. I was virtually forced to do this because of the provisions of the new ballot paper. Since we are dealing with legislation relating to electoral advertising, I would like to know whether and when advertising will take place from the Australian Electoral Commission about the new ballot paper. If electors are not informed by the Electoral Office then a burden falls on other people to inform them. It would be far better if the Commonwealth Electoral Commission were to do the advertising, but in such a way as it will not be of a partisan character and will not offend legitimate candidates. The CHAIRMAN(Senator Hamer) —I let you complete your remarks, Senator Harradine , and I could see their relevance, but they are more relevant to the principal Act than to this amending Bill, which is of very limited scope. We are dealing with clauses 6, 7 and 8. I would not like to see a development of that line of debate at this stage-although the Attorney-General, of course, may reply if he wishes. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.10) —I think, Mr Chairman, that the same comments apply, with even more force, to Senator Lewis's rather self-consciously contrived contribution to this debate. As to Senator Harradine, I am able to say only that the intention is for there to be quite substantial advertising from the Electoral Office as to the format of the ballot paper and how to cope with it in its new shape. That is expected to take place over the last two weeks before the election date. The precise commencement date for that is a matter that I shall have to take on notice, but I shall advise Senator Harradine as directed from the Electoral Office as soon as possible on that matter. It will be the last fortnight, basically, which is thought to be sufficient time for the basic message to get across. I do not accept the premise of Senator Lewis's question. The departmental informative advertising of government programs is not to be in any way confused with crude, partisan advertising of the kind that was all too familiar, employing taxpayers' money, under the previous Government. I am not sure whether there are any guidelines, nonetheless, that have been accepted concerning that informative advertising. I shall have to seek an answer and advise the honourable senator at some appropriate time accordingly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.11) — Mr Chairman, I believe that all matters relating to advertising are appropriate to be raised at this stage, because we are dealing with the question of the utilisation of time for the purpose of considering whether the advertising would be truthful or deceptive-- The CHAIRMAN —We are dealing with clauses 6, 7 and 8 and the title. Which clause , Senator Harradine, do you wish to speak to? Senator HARRADINE —Mr Chairman, I shall speak on the third reading. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Amendment (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: At end of motion, add, 'but the Senate is of the opinion that election results in the 1984 Federal election should not be broadcast or telecast in any State or Territory by broadcasters in that State or Territory until polls are closed in that State or Territory.' Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Amendment (by Senator Durack) agreed to: At end of motion, add, 'but the Senate is of the opinion that a suitable person should be commissioned to ascertain the wishes of the Australian citizens on Christmas Island as to which electoral division of Australia they should be included in for the purposes of participating in elections for the Commonwealth Parliament and referendums under the Commonwealth Constitution.' Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.16) —I was going to propose, Mr President, that we did not take these Bills cognately. There are certain separate matters, and I propose that Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 should be taken separately from the others. There is a proposal of which the Government and honourable senators have had notice in relation to what I might summarise as the hot stamping machines question which arises under Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3). The PRESIDENT —Order! You will need leave to propose that course of action, because I understand that it has already been agreed that the three Bills be taken together. Senator PETER RAE —Mr President, I seek leave to propose that course. Senator Gareth Evans —Is it not possible for Senator Peter Rae to do whatever he wants to do about hot stamping machines in the context of a cognate debate provided that, as is the practice of this place, the Committee stages and second readings are voted upon separately? Senator PETER RAE —I do not pursue my application. I shall deal with the Bills in the order in which they appear. The first is the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984, which proposes to amend the principal Customs Tariff Act in a wide variety of ways. The amendments will implement a number of decisions taken by the Government about Customs duties applying to certain beer, manufactured tobacco products, and aviation fuels. They will implement decisions on Industries Assistance Commission reports in relation to the computer industry and electric motors, interim duty arrangements to apply to certain motor vehicles for the period 30 May-the commencement date of the Government's motor vehicle plan-to 31 December 1984, and changes to the designation of certain countries and places eligible for declared preference country and developing country preferences as a result of independence or of the changing of the names of places in question. There are amendments to developing country preferences in relation to fireworks from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. There are amendments to provide specifically for hot stamping machines in item 84.35 of the tariff, which change, it is claimed, was the result of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal determination, to which I shall turn in more detail. There are a number of administrative alterations, which include an amendment to section 13 (4) (a) to clarify the intention that the phasing of rates of duty apply to Schedule 3 only, and amendments to section 26A, sub- sections (2) and (3), to include reference to the fact that indexation of certain amounts of Customs duty occurs on a particular day. There are a number of tidying up matters. The Bill is very comprehensive. If one were to discuss the items in detail it would take some hours to describe them and to talk about their potential impacts . Obviously that is not appropriate, but I do refer to a few of them. With regard to the motor vehicle policy, there is the addition of two legal notes, one for definition of variants and the other for cars without engines; an increase in duty and quantitative restrictions-that is, quotas-in relation to certain four-wheel drive vehicles, for instance, the Subaru four-wheel drive and the Toyota Tercel; and the decrease in duty by 10 per cent for utilities and pick-ups which were previously treated as variants and which are not treated as non-variant type utilities and pick-ups. The duty arrangements for the computer industry have been substantially altered. Most of the duties have been reduced to minimum levels, or notice has been given that rates will be reduced. These proposals fit in with bounty proposals which have been introduced and which have been through the legislative process. Manufacturers, suppliers and customers have welcomed the decisions that have been taken in relation to the computer industry, which, of course, is an increasingly important industry in Australia as well as in a large number of countries. The proposed changes as a result of the Budget have received some discussion in this place in relation to other legislation which has already been before us. In regard to the question of reducing the anomalies which were said to exist regarding alcohol levels, it has already been pointed out that the imposition of a 20 per cent sales tax on very light alcohol beer can be seen as a socially undesirable action, however equitable it may have been as between the manufacturers and purveyors of soft drink and the manufacturers and purveyors of the very light alcohol beer. It may be that the social benefit of the reduction of the damage which is done in the community as a result of the consumption of alcohol was taken to outweigh the commercial equality argument in this instance. I point to the fact that many people in the community would regard the decision of the Government as a wrong decision and a decision which should not have been taken. There is, however, a welcome reduction in the amount of excise payable in respect of light alcohol beer-not the very light; the light-and that is to be welcomed. The steps that have been taken with regard to manufactured tobacco-bringing it closer to cigarettes and cigars-is something which I suppose has some equity merit. When one looks at the increase in aviation fuels one wonders whether it is not a case of hitting again the small man, as this Government appears to have done so often, and also hitting the people in the country areas who depend upon light aircraft. General aviation is being subjected again to an extra imposition as a result of the changes which are being made. That cost is then passed on to the people who are the users of general aviation. Substantially, they are people in the rural areas of Australia. I notice that the changes concerning developing country preferences are not real changes in relation to the termination of the problems that exist in the world today as to the countries which are entitled to developing country preference. One can mount a very good argument as to why a developed nation such as the Republic of Korea, which has had a tremendous investment of capital and technology from both Japan and the United States of America in particular and which has developed very rapidly a very modern manufacturing economy, should be reconsidered in relation to its entitlement to developing country preference. There are a number of countries which have, I believe, developed to the stage where they no longer qualify for developing country preferences of the nature that have been given to them in the past. Whether one phases down the developing country preferences or simply eliminates from the list some of the countries which have now reached the stage of development whereby they should be reviewed is a matter on which we are eagerly awaiting some government decision. It is a decision which has been a long time coming and one which we believe is overdue. However, these are all Budget matters. They are matters which arise out of the Government's right to prepare and to introduce a Budget. The Opposition will not be opposing any of the items however much we may feel that some of them are not the most desirable decisions which could have been taken in the best interests of Australia. That matter which will take a little time to explain concerns the complex question of the classification of hot stamping machines. Not everybody is immediately aware of what a hot stamping machine is. It is a machine which is used in the process of printing. For many years it has fallen under item 84.35 of the tariff. This means that it was able to be imported at a 2 per cent duty rate. Two major parties are involved in the question of hot stamping machines. One is the Australian domestic manufacturer, who obviously receives an advantage if the duty is higher but who has been carrying on business for a good many years without the protection of a high tariff. The second is the importer, who obviously has a tremendous advantage if the duty is 2 per cent as opposed to what it will be under this amending Bill-20 per cent. There is a concern as to the process by which the change from classification 84 .35, which is the 2 per cent duty, to 84.59, which is the 20 per cent duty, was arrived at. In fact, a very considerable case has been put to both the Government and the Opposition-and, as I understand it, to the Australian Democrats-by people involved in the process whereby an administrative action appears on the face of it to be contrary to the provisions of section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act, which requires that there be a report of the Industries Assistance Commission before the Government changes the classification for duty purposes of any particular item. In the case of hot stamping machines it is claimed that there has not been any such inquiry. In fact, the matter went before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which ruled that the Australian Customs Service had sought to introduce an amendment to the Customs tariffs specifically to refer hot stamping machines at the higher rate of 20 per cent, and the Tribunal ruled that the Customs Service was not entitled to do so. I have received telexes not only from the importer who has, as I have said, the clear interest in ensuring that the duty is kept at its lowest form of 2 per cent but also from the manufacturer of hot stamping machines, who states: The present tariff ruling on hot stamping machines is imperative to ensure the viability of our manufacturing and export program. Each standard model of the machines we manufacture is produced in batches of 10 to 25 units in order to effect savings in quantity production and this enables us to export a fair percentage of our machines. If the duty on this equipment is reduced we will lose market share which will result in us producing in smaller batches and being less competitive. Even a partial loss of the local market would most likely force us to have this equipment manufactured overseas. We therefore urge you to proceed with the transfer from 84.59 to 84.35 of the rate of duty of 15 per cent applicable to hot stamping machines and thereby ensure that the present ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does not destroy the market for our products. The alternative view is put by Professional Consulting Services on behalf of Leonhard Kurz (Australia) Pty Ltd, the importer of hot stamping machines, in a telex which states in part: The above Bill passed all stages in the House of Representatives yesterday, notwithstanding an Opposition motion for amendment to delete from it item 58 in Schedule 3, which alters the rate of duty on hot stamping machines (a type of printing machine) from 2 per cent to 20 per cent. This alteration has been made contrary to law, in that the alteration breaches the requirement of section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. Mr A. Cadman moved that the alteration be deleted from the Bill, tabling in support of that motion a statutory declaration which sets out all of the facts of this matter. The Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr J. Brown, opposed the motion, acting on advice conveyed (as I understand it) by officers of the Australian Customs Service. The statements made to the House by the Minister against the amendment motion, based on that departmental advice, contained statements which were false and misleading. On behalf of our clients, we request that the Opposition in the Senate move amendment of this Bill to delete the unlawful alteration. Mr Cadman is able to supply all of the facts in support of this request. I have with me a very thick file and a 20-page statutory declaration, together with all the annex- ures which have been prepared in support of the Kurz case. The telex continues: In the event that it is possible to do so, we would be grateful if this Bill could be referred to committee prior to debate in the Senate, so that the unlawful alteration and all of the facts surrounding it may be subjected to examination. We will be pleased to present ourselves for examination by the Senate or a committee of the Senate on any matter raised in the declaration tabled in the House, and on any other matter considered relevant to this issue. Those telexes, in summary form, raise the matters which are before us with regard to this part of the Bill. This issue has a long history, and that history is set out in the 20-page statutory declaration made by Mr Ian Richard Rodda, a tariff consultant, of 45 Stirling Avenue, North Rocks, in the State of New South Wales. He states in that declaration that he is employed in the professional consulting services section of Rudders Import Export and International Division and that in conjunction with a colleague he has been retained by Leonhard Kurz ( Australia) Pty Ltd on that firm's behalf as tariff consultant. I seek leave to table, as did Mr Cadman, that 20-page statutory declaration which sets out the whole of the background in relation to this case Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Senate. Whilst there is concern about some of the other items in the Bill, there is particular concern about two matters: Firstly, the interests of the industry, which are for government decision; and, secondly, the processes by which any decision has been arrived at. This could properly be a matter for consideration by the Senate. It is the view of the Opposition that the Senate should express its view and express a degree of concern that a prima facie case appears to have been made out that a breach of the normal procedures has occurred in this case. On behalf of the Opposition I now move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984, the Senate is firmly of the opinion that the following matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade: The application of the procedures for the imposition of duty on the importation of hot stamping machines into Australia, with particular reference to the propriety of the administrative action involved in increasing the duty without a report from the Industries Assistance Commission and any associated matters'. I have added the final words 'and any associated matters' to the copy of the amendment which was circulated to honourable senators because I understand that Senator Jack Evans wished to see words to that effect added. I now foreshadow that if this motion is carried, pursuant to standing order 196A, after the Bills have been read a second time, I will move: (1) That the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade for inquiry and report upon the appropriateness of the procedures followed in increasing the duty imposed on the importation of hot stamping machines into Australia, with particular reference to such increase being imposed by administrative action in the absence of a report from the Industries Assistance Commission. (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 18 October 1984. I understand that the Committee would be prepared to look at this matter. So that it can be dealt with expeditiously, as we are sitting for probably only a matter of a few days, I propose that the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade have a quick look at this question and report by Thursday, 18 October 1984 . Senator Gareth Evans —Have you discussed this with the Minister? Senator PETER RAE —The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) is aware of these proposals. He has had them for a week or more. I have notes here referring to discussions with his office in relation to these proposals which state the office has shown an attitude which indicates a degree of sympathy. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Standing Orders have been suspended so that these three Bills can be taken through all three stages together. Your amendment to the second reading of the three Bills is in order but if you wish to move later that one Bill be referred to a committee, you will require leave to do so. Senator PETER RAE —Would that be after the second reading? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes. Senator PETER RAE —I was just giving notice of my intention so that honourable senators would be aware of the steps that are proposed in relation to this matter. There is some obligation to find out whether the correct procedures have been adopted and what should have happened when applying the law which achieved this result, which will have a very significant effect one way or the other on the two major companies involved in this industry. Because of time constraints I propose to speak relatively briefly to the next Bill on the list, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, which again is quite comprehensive. It proposes changes to the excise rate on crude oil produced from areas discovered after 17 September 1975, called new oil. This measure is expected to raise revenue to the value of some $317m in 1984-85. Other changes which will be made by the Bill include a reduction in the excise on liquefied petroleum gas by $12.27 per kilolitre, reflecting the soft state of the world export market for LPG, and the removal of the excise on grape spirit for fortifying wine with effect from 22 August 1984. The excise paid in 1983-84 on fortifying spirit will be refunded in full by the Government. This measure reflects a recantation by the Government which imposed, with disastrous effects, a duty on grape spirit for fortifying wine. At last, as a result of the efforts of the Opposition and the industry, the Government has seen the folly of its ways. We are grateful that it has taken steps to remove the excise. The Bill will increase the number of decimal places in the excise rate for beer from two places to five places with effect from 18 July 1984. One wonders how such a measure could make so much difference, but it is estimated by the beer industry that when the automatic six-monthly indexation took place in February this year, the rounding effect, because of the failure to have a larger number of decimal places, cost the industry approximately $20m. Again, this amendment, which will remove an unfortunate extra imposition on the industry, is welcomed. The Bill will remove the requirement that Australian gin must be made only from grape, grain or fruit spirit. This measure is the result of a recommendation by the National Health and Medical Research Council which reviewed the rules in relation to gin and found that unnecessary costs were imposed and that the requirement was outdated. The Government is implementing that recommendation. Again, we support this measure. The Bill will implement changes to the definition and rates of excise for beer as a result of the Budget. I have already referred to that matter. The Bill will increase excise rates on tobacco, aviation gasolene and aviation kerosene. I have already referred to these changes in relation to the customs tariffs Bills. As I say, it is unfortunate that rural Australia is again being hit by this Government which appears not to be overly concerned about the impact that its measures have on the people who live in rural areas and gain a lot of export earnings for Australia from rural pursuits. The excise on new oil will raise the price of fuel Australia-wide, not only in rural areas to which I have just referred but also for every consumer and for industries in general, particularly the wheat and grain growing industries which are very heavy fuel users and which have already suffered very severely as a result of drought and other things. We have reached the point where the imposition of various fuel levies and the resultant costs will have a counter- productive effect on a number of industries in Australia unless very great care is taken. The time may have come where the levelling off in the world market is the justification for carrying out a very considerable review of the imposition of various sorts of taxation on oil in Australia. The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984 proposes to exempt from payment of the coal export duty blended coal from open cut and underground mines. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON —I remind honourable senators of the absence overseas this week of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, and ask that any questions for Senator Walsh be directed to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to matters raised in the House of Representatives last week about the issue of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union pursuant to a resolution in that place, and to the warning given by the Speaker that no absolute privilege would attach to the copy of the edited Costigan Commission report which would be received by members . Reference was made to advice given by the Attorney-General on this matter and Dr Jenkins issued the warning that honourable members should be aware that copies of the report to be provided to them in accordance with the proposed resolution would not attract the absolute privilege which applies to papers tabled in the House and duly authorised for publication. I note also that the Government has not made any comment on the suggestion by Dr Jenkins on the question of whether or not the Government should indemnify members of parliament for the use of the document. I ask the Attorney: Would the problem that he has identified for Dr Jenkins be removed if the Costigan report were tabled in the Senate in the normal way? Senator GARETH EVANS —The question of the privilege attaching to reports is a difficult one at the best of times and even more so in the context of the dissolution of a House and the status of the Speaker of that House after such dissolution. Generally, in the circumstances of this case, if the report is tabled in the Victorian Parliament, as it is the Government's intention to arrange with the co-operation of the Victorian Government, of course absolute privilege will attach to the report in that jurisdiction and the 'fair report' qualified privilege will also attach to it there. Whether that privilege extends beyond the boundaries of Victoria is in turn a vexed affair. The New South Wales legislation seems to make it clear that it does but legislation elsewhere is much less certain. That again points arguably to the necessity for a national defamation law to resolve these questions once and for all. Whether the situation would be any better were the report to be tabled in the Senate is very much a matter for argument. Although, of course, the Senate is still in existence in the way that the House of Representatives is not the latter having been dissolved, there is a real question as to whether it is part of a parliament for the purposes of attracting the 'proceedings in parliament' privilege after the House of Representatives as a component of the Parliament has itself been dissolved. So, quite irrespective of whether the Senate is in session, that particular question may have to be litigated in some context or other. Of course, the Government has indicated its willingness to present the report to the Senate, through the President, in the normal way that committee reports are presented to the Parliament during periods of recess. There has been some discussion about whether the terms of the resolution by which that intention was conveyed last week are adequate for the purpose. I gather that there will be some further discussion of that before the week is out. I do not think that any short answer can be given to Senator Chaney's question because of the whole series of different variables and considerations which have to be taken into account. Only a very confident lawyer would advise his client of the ultimate chances. My view is that a qualified privilege would certainly obtain on traditional principles in this area as far as the communication by the Government to the President is concerned, and the President in turn to members of the Parliament. Therefore, I would not anticipate any particular difficulties , at least at that level. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I appreciate the Attorney-General's concern about the type of lawyer we would need to get advice from in this matter and the need to be very confident, but would he agree that, if there are any doubts in this matter, there would be fewer doubts if in fact the document were actually tabled during a sitting of the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I thought I made it clear that that is one of the key questions very much in issue as to the status of Senate proceedings at a time when the House of Representatives has been dissolved. Senator Durack —What about committees of the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —Competing opinions are in existence on this question as far as the capacity of Senate committees to sit and attract privilege are concerned. Senator Durack —They have sat. Senator GARETH EVANS —I know they have sat, but even a lawyer of Senator Durack' s approach to the discipline would appreciate that the precedent value of having sat in such a way in the past does not amount to a row of beans when it comes to the status of the proceedings should someone choose to challenge those proceedings and seek the protection of the law of defamation in relation to anything that happened therein. I honestly cannot be any more precise than I have been in my initial answer to Senator Chaney's question. The PRESIDENT —Order! On the matter that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I should say that the Speaker's remarks have been drawn to my attention. I expressed some views of concern to the Attorney-General by way of memorandum to him yesterday and the Attorney-General has undertaken to respond to my submission. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of the highly successful and popular horticultural education and training project for Aboriginals being run at Poverty Flat near Ceduna in South Australia ? Is the Minister aware that this project has positively improved employment and living skills of all participants and has proved extremely versatile by producing fruit, vegetables and flowers from an infertile scrub environment? Will the Minister consider the possibility of using the Poverty Flat project as a model for other Aboriginal communities? Will the Minister also consider the viability of similar projects being set up as business and management training ventures, particularly for Aboriginals in remote areas where unemployment is very high and community demand for fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers is guaranteed? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has advised me of the project to which Senator Elstob's question referred. The project at Poverty Flat, which is a project for the growing of vegetables and flowers in an infertile environment, has been extremely successful. The Minister advises that the project is being funded by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs-and also with some technical and further education funding, I am pleased to say, in relation to my own portfolio. The Minister will consider the possibility of using the Poverty Flat project as a model for other Aboriginal communities. However, it is up to each Aboriginal community to establish its priorities in relation to projects it wishes to undertake. In respect of the training of Aboriginals in business and management skills, the Poverty Flat project will be able to be used as a successful model on which other business and management ventures can be based. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask: Does the Government's projected Bill of Rights, about which the Attorney is so coy and which he refuses to make public, give effect to Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in itself guarantees universal and equal suffrage? If so, will the Bill of Rights require State electoral laws to comply with the requirement of one vote one value? Will the Bill of Rights provide some mechanism by which this guarantee can be enforced in respect of a State law which may be in breach of it? Will the Bill of Rights enable proceedings to be taken in the Federal Court of Australia, the Human Rights Commissioner or some other body for that purpose? What powers may be exercised under the Bill against a State which refuses to comply with any findings of a Federal court or Human Rights Commission or other mechanism in regard to a State electoral law which breaches the guarantee of one vote one value? Senator GARETH EVANS —It would be quite premature to speculate on the terms of the proposed Bill of Rights legislation which have not yet been finally settled, and I do not propose to do so. The particular question as to the meaning of Article 25 of the International Covenant, should it be transmitted into the terms of domestic legislation, has been the subject of various earlier answers in this place by me in the course of which I have pointed to the uncertainty as to whether it would ever be construed by a court as in fact guaranteeing equal voting rights in the sense of equal electoral boundaries. I do not propose to add anything to what I said earlier on that subject. Senator PRIMMER —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that on Saturday, 22 September last a Mr John Griffin from New South Wales was taken to the Woomera Base Hospital in a delirious state, suffering pain, running a fever and unable to walk. Is it a fact that acting under instructions from Canberra the hospital's chief surgeon, Mr Narayan, refused Mr Griffin medical treatment and that Mr Griffin was threatened with police action if he did not leave the casualty ward? Did the South Australian police plead with Mr Narayan to carry out a medical examination and, when that was again refused, take Mr Griffin to the Port Augusta hospital where his illness required hospitalisation for around two weeks? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will have to take that question on notice, relating as it does to questions of detail on which I have no particular briefing in front of me at the moment. Senator MASON —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs read the report in today's Age concerning a Central Intelligence Agency produced manual entitled 'Psychological Operations in Guerilla War' which is being distributed in Nicaragua? Is the Government aware that this manual, the authenticity of which apparently has been confirmed, recommends that professional criminals be hired for selective jobs, that government officials can be neutralised by the use of violence, that martyrs be created by killing rebel leaders in violent demonstrations and that Nicaraguans can be coerced into acting contrary to their will? Is is a fact that the CIA controls or at least is heavily involved in the control of the United States base at Pine Gap near Alice Springs? Does the Australian Government have full knowledge of and control over CIA activities in Australia? Can the Government give an unequivocal assurance to the Senate that the sorts of activities of the standard of morality indicated in the Nicaraguan manual are not operating in this country? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was aware that that question would be asked and I did in fact hear it being asked. However, I am afraid I can give no better answer to Senator Mason than I gave to Senator Primmer because I have no detailed briefing available on either the subject of the Nicaraguan manual to which he refers or the larger questions. I will endeavour to get an answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and contribute accordingly to the honourable senator's state of knowledge on those matters. Senator MASON —I cannot believe that the Attorney-General of this country, a senior Minister of the Cabinet, cannot answer the question: Does the Australian Government have full knowledge of and control over CIA activities in Australia? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Mason will ask a supplementary question or resume his seat. Senator MASON —Mr President, I am asking the Minister to respond to my question: Does the Australian Government have full knowledge of and control over CIA activities in Australia? The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. The honourable senator has already put the question. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister for Eduction and Youth Affairs whether she has seen a somewhat bizarre proposal to sell public schools in Australia to private interests? If so, can the Minister say whether such a step would be of any value or benefit to Australian school children and whether she can see any advantages at all coming out of this proposal? Senator RYAN —My attention has been drawn to what Senator Bolkus rightly describes as a bizarre proposal emanating from the upper echelons of the Liberal Party, namely, that public schools in this country should be sold out to private interests. I waste the time of honourable senators at Question Time to comment on this matter only because no doubt many people will be concerned as to what this might mean in the unlikely event of this country ever having a Liberal government again. Senator Button —Will they sell the children too? Senator RYAN —Whether the children go with the schools is something on which the Liberal Party Forward Planning Group, I think it was called, might give us further elucidation. Apparently the report containing the bizarre suggestion recommends that a Liberal government: Consider various means (not only sale) of transfer to the private sector: e.g. education can be progressively privatised by assisting parents to make their own choice. Where sale is the preferred method, the price obtained is less important than the resulting consumer benefits. We have heard a lot of exaggerated and crude consumerism coming from the other side of the chamber in our time, but I cannot think of anything worse than this. I would simply place on the record the point that in the view of our Government education is not a service which can be bought by those who are able to pay the highest fees. It is not a part of social policy which lends itself to consumerism. The kinds of suggestions of privatisation which have been forthcoming from the Liberal Party leave out entirely any consideration of the benefits to a democratic society of a public education system. It happens to be the case that 75 per cent of the nation's children are educated in the public school system, and have been for all of this century and, I believe, will continue to be. It happens to be the case that the public education system can provide benefits to a democratic society, such as the opportunity for children to learn and be educated amongst children from diverse backgrounds, which no private school, however good, can offer in quite the same way. It is also the case that if education were to be privatised in this country there would be many children whose parents, not being high wage earners, would be unable to buy for their children what we in the Labor Government consider is their right-the highest possible standard of education. Some spokespersons in the public education sector have expressed some disappointment at the level of funding that we have been able to make available for public education. Although we have greatly increased public support for public education via Commonwealth recurrent and special purpose programs, it is still the case that there has been some disappointment expressed with regard to the level of funding. I simply draw to the attention of those spokespersons who have been expressing disappointment what the real agenda of any possible future Liberal government is. It is an absolutely absurd suggestion and would destroy the education system as we have developed it over a century in this country. In the view of our Government it runs completely contrary to what we see as our responsibility, which is assisting the public sector to provide the highest possible standard of education which is open to all children without fees and without any other form of selectivity. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, follows the question she has just answered. I ask: Is it not a fact that the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales sought to sell the Dover Heights High School to private interests? Is it not a fact that this Labor Government is the only government in Australia to have tried to sell a public school to private interests? Senator RYAN —Although the administration of the New South Wales public education system is not within my portfolio, I do not think I can let the moment pass without explaining what happened with regard to the Dover Heights High School. As everybody knows, it was the case that the decline in the numbers of students at that school was such that the New South Wales authorities decided that the school would be closed down and that those students would attend other schools in the area. I believe it was also the case that there were some negotiations-I think with one of the private Jewish schools in the area-about taking over the buildings. As it turned out there was a great deal of criticism of this proposal by teachers and parents in the public education sector and in fact the transfer never took place. As I recall, the school which was no longer needed as a public school in that part of Dover Heights now operates as a technical and further education college. I remind Senator Baume that TAFE colleges are public education institutions and, like our public schools, are publicly available and accessible. Senator McINTOSH —Does the Attorney-General accept the criticism of Mr John Stone yesterday that his and the Government's handling of the Age tapes affair has been quite unsatisfactory? Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr Stone's comments on the state of the nation are no longer taken seriously, and do not deserve to be taken seriously, by any serious -minded observer of the current Australian political and economic scene. My colleague Paul Keating made that very clear this morning on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program in the context of Mr Stone's contribution to the economic debate. I suggest that his comments deserve no credence at all in an area in which he can claim no expertise or special knowledge of any kind, but since he does echo in relation to the Age tapes affair sentiments which have been given wider currency recently, let me take the opportunity to explain in a little detail why I and the Government believe our handling of the Age tapes matter has left nothing to be desired. The critical comments have tended to completely ignore the following: First, the Age tapes transcripts and summaries are, and remain, wholly unauthenticated and, at least so far as the purely written material is concerned, probably unable ever to be authenticated and, whether authentic or not, were clearly obtained in circumstances of massive illegality and privacy invasion. Secondly, to the extent that the Age material raises the possibility of breaches of State law, its investigation must continue to be the responsibility of the relevant State authorities. There is nothing the Commonwealth can do by way of royal commission. The division of law enforcement powers under the Constitution makes that impossible. What the Commonwealth has done is pass special enabling legislation to remove any possible doubt about the legality of the material being dealt with by the New South Wales Commission of Public Complaints. Thirdly , to the extent that the Age material raises questions of possible breaches of Federal law involving Robert Trimbole and his alleged drug trafficking ring, it has been referred to Mr Justice Stewart's ongoing Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and enabling legislation has, again, been passed to remove any possible doubt about the legality of the material being dealt with by that Commission. Fourthly, to the extent that the material raises the possibility of other breaches of Federal law, these matters have been the subject of investigation by the Australian Federal Police and review by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr Temby has concluded in his report of July 1984 that 'none of them are worthy of further investigation'. Fifthly, to the extent that the Age material raises questions about the conduct of Mr Justice Murphy, this material was thoroughly examined by the first Senate committee, the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, which reported unanimously to the Parliament on 24 August that it was unable, save for part of the material subject to certain limited acknowledgments, to conclude that the material was authentic in whole or part; and even if the one tape, and the other transcripts and summaries, purporting to refer to the judge were completely authentic, then nothing was disclosed that could amount to misbehaviour under section 72 of the Constitution, whatever interpretation of that section was adopted. The Committee did not divide at all over the Age material, only over the response to Mr Briese's oral evidence given in the course of its inquiry. The Age material, as such, is not the subject of the present second Senate committee inquiry. To the extent, however, that the criticism of Mr Stone, and others, does extend beyond the Age material to the Government's response to the Briese allegations against Mr Justice Murphy after these came to light in the report of the Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge of 24 August, then this criticism tends to completely overlook the following further points, the key elements of which were spelt out at some length in my statement of 4 September, and which I repeat: First, neither a royal commission nor any other kind of 'independent' inquiry, apart from an ordinary court proceeding, could produce a finding of ' proved misbehaviour' that would be likely to satisfy the requirements of section 72 of the Constitution. Secondly, the Government's proposal to refer Mr Briese's material to the DPP was not in order that he or the police might conduct any further detailed investigation, for which special powers were obviously lacking, but only to enable him to review the existing material, involving some thousand pages of transcript and documents from the first Committee inquiry, to determine whether a basis existed for criminal prosecution. If it did, this was in the Government's view a preferable course to the matter being the subject of trial, as it were, before a parliamentary committee. This course, however, became impracticable when the Opposition and Democrats combined, for reasons of their own, to insist on the material being simultaneously referred to the DPP and the Senate Committee. Senator Townley —I take a point of order, Mr President. This is obviously a prepared statement by the Attorney which should be dealt with at a time other than Question Time. Many honourable senators would like to ask questions but do not get a chance because of answers like this. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I cannot direct how a Minister shall answer a question, but I ask the Attorney-General, as I asked all Ministers last week, to reduce his reply as much as is possible. Senator GARETH EVANS —I will do it as much as is possible, Mr President. Thirdly , the Government has participated-albeit reluctantly-in the second Senate committee inquiry on the basis that we acknowledge that section 72 misbehaviour matters are ultimately ones for the Parliament to resolve. We remain of the strong view, however, that when what is involved is for all practical purposes a criminal trial, involving an allegation of misconduct amounting to a criminal offence, then it is far better for it to be resolved in the first instance by the criminal courts in accordance with the traditional procedures of the criminal law. If a conviction occurred, that would be clearly 'proved misbehaviour' on which both Houses could proceed to an address under section 72; if an acquittal, that should be the end of the matter. I conclude by saying that the bottom line in all of this remains as I spelt it out in my original statement to Parliament on 28 February: It is not necessary, and indeed it is quite destructive of some of the very values it is sought to preserve-including in particular public confidence in the executive, legislative and judicial institutions of Government-for every piece of scuttlebutt or tale of scandal to result in a full scale, full length royal commission. Allegations are constantly made against public figures, and are constantly being disproved or rebutted. While I readily concede that smoke is sometimes accompanied by fire, that is by no means always the case, as has been amply demonstrated over the last 12 months by the conclusions of the Street Royal Commission into the ABC allegations against Neville Wran, the Cross inquiries into the Sinclair and Bottom allegations, and the fate of the allegations made against Mr Justice Murphy in the Sala, Saffron and Moll-diamonds affairs. The task of any government is to respond quickly, sensitively and decisively when allegations of official corruption or organised crime are made, but also to do so in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances, and does not cause unnecessary and unjustified hurt to individuals or the institutions they represent. That is the way we have responded during the whole course of this extraordinarily difficult sequence of events to date, and how we will continue to act in the future. Senator Chaney —Mr President, pursuant to Standing Orders I ask the Attorney to table the rope from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —Senator Evans has been asked to table the- Senator Chaney —The rope he is hanging him- self with. The PRESIDENT —document from which he quoted. Senator Gareth Evans —I do so with pleasure. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to his not too immodest comments in recent times in respect of this Government's achievements and performance in the creation of jobs during its period of office. I ask him: Is it a fact that since February 1983-I use that as a bottom line, to assist him-and August 1984 there has been in fact a decline in employment in the productive areas of Australia such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transport and storage but only a very modest increase in construction, to the extent of something slightly less than 1,000, and a very modest increase also in wholesale and retail services? Is it a fact that by comparison there has been a significant increase in employment in public administration and community services-areas of course dominated by government employees? Is it a fact that employment in these two areas has increased by 8.4 per cent and 11.4 per cent respectively since the Labor Government took office, and is it a fact that collectively these two areas have accounted for 139,000 of the jobs created, which this Government claims is some sort of achievement? In that case, is it not a fact that the great majority of jobs which this Government claims have been created are in the public sector and not in the productive private sector? Senator BUTTON —Senator Crichton-Browne asked me about 28 questions and I shall endeavour to deal with them. I say at the beginning that, even if the statistics which he bodgied up for the purpose of this question are correct-- Senator Crichton-Browne —They are from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They are not bodgied up. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator should not get excited. The important question is: So what? Let me explain the position. It is true that there has been a slight decline in agricultural employment in the last 18 months, as I believe there has been a decline every year for the past 20 years, and certainly a marked decline over a period of two decades. Senator Crichton-Browne —Mining? Senator BUTTON —It is true that there has been a decline in mining employment. Senator Crichton-Browne will recall the heady days of the resources boom, of which he was one of the most articulate sorcerers in this place. The resources boom was to lead to the creation of up to 500,000 extra jobs in the mining industry. Those were the sorts of anticipations that were falsely created by previous governments in relation to mining employment-something that was always dissented from by the then Opposition. In regard to manufacturing employment, yes, there has been a slight decline in that sector. Senator Boswell —What else is left? Senator BUTTON —Senator Boswell asks: What else is left? If the Australian community as a whole were employed at the low rate of activity at which Senator Boswell is employed in this place, an enormous area would be left, but most people are much more productively employed than he is. I do not know whether Senator Crichton-Browne's figures are correct in regard to transport, but if they are they are very marginal. In order to make a point out of his question, Senator Crichton-Browne points to the increase in public sector employment. It is true that there has been an increase in public sector and community service employment, something that has been happening for a number of years and happened under the previous Government. The increase in State public sector employment under the previous Government was quite considerable. I would think that it is difficult to draw any particular political point from that. There are two areas which Senator Crichton-Browne very carefully leaves out of his question. I refer, for example, to the financial services area where there has been a significant increase in employment but, because he wants to make a point, he does not mention that. Furthermore, there has been a significant increase in employment in tourism. Again, because he wants to make a political point, he does not mention that aspect either. The substantial increases in employment in the finance and tourism sectors-Senator Boswell ought to know about the tourism sector because it is the only area in which there has been an increase in employment recorded in his State, as I recall-are most important. Senator Crichton-Browne might know that over a number of years in all Western economies there has been a move from primary sector employment and manufacturing sector employment to so-called tertiary sector employment. That is a move from which Australia is not immune and has not been immune for many years. If one examines employment changes in Japan, one sees that the employment change from the manufacturing sector to the tertiary sector is extremely significant. In fact, it is enormous compared with this country. The same sort of pattern of events has occurred in the United States of America. This Government, in common with any responsible government, has to be concerned about aggregate levels of employment. The Government cannot say that there will always be employment for 500 candlestick makers in Australia if people are not particularly interested in using candles. I use a simple analogy so that it will be understood by Senator Boswell, Senator Lewis and Senator Crichton-Browne. One cannot say that employment will be fixed immutably in particular trades, occupations, professions or industries. That will not happen. Governments have to be concerned with aggregate employment. This Government is concerned about aggregate employment and has reduced the unemployment rate by several percentage points since it came into office. The Government has created 250,000 new jobs, which should be compared with the shabby record of the previous Government-a government that produced the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a supplementary question. Will he confirm that the majority of jobs created have been in the public sector? Will he please explain how finance servicing in terms of creating employment directly and tangibly affects our export earnings? Senator BUTTON —That is an extraordinary question coming from Senator Crichton- Browne, who I always thought was an advocate of freeing the financial sector and encouraging employment in that area. That is not a supplementary question, though the first part of the question was. I cannot give precise figures, but I would concede that at least half the jobs created have been in government services of one kind or another-in Federal, State, or local government, statutory instrumentalities or companies run by those various arms of government . There is nothing magical or new about that. All it indicates is that the private sector, which has been undergoing great change in manufacturing in particular and is alert to the importance of new technology, is not employing as many people as it might. I could be asked a further supplementary question about private sector investment some other time and we could deal with that. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It refers to the Federal road funding programs. Can the Minister inform the Senate of any problems which have arisen in the administration of Federal road funding programs as a result of the amendment made by the Opposition last June to the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Bill? I would add that that amendment was supported in the House by the National Party of Australia, and in particular by Senator Boswell in this place. Senator GIETZELT —I well remember the debate-a debate in which I acted on behalf of the Minister for Transport in this place-in which the Government tried to suggest to the Senate the need for some flexibility in respect of local road programs under the control of the States. However, I recall the inflexible attitude taken by the Senate. The Government wanted the Senate to endorse tendering arrangements for emergency works or minor works for local government regions projects in remote areas and tendering arrangements which could have been carried out with the express approval of the Federal Minister for Transport . I drew the Senate's attention to the problems that these amendments would create for many local government instrumentalities throughout Australia, particularly in Queensland. At the time I reminded the Senate that representations were made by the Tasmanian Minister for Main Roads and also the Queensland Minister. Nevertheless, the Senate decided to take a stand which now places the Government in an impossible position to meet any of the amendments to the tendering arrangements which have been requested of it by the States, particularly Queensland. I remind one of the National Party senators from Queensland that when the debate was taking place he saw a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, but was not able to convince his National Party colleagues to join with the Government because the party room decision had been made without understanding the Government's strategy on this point. Several representations are now being made to the Minister for Transport, one from Senator Bjelke-Petersen, asking for an exemption from the tendering arrangements on the Landsborough Highway in central Queensland in the interests of the Main Roads Department employees, who now face the possibility of dismissal as a result of the decisions made by the Opposition in the Senate when these matters were being debated earlier this year. I can say only that National Party senators obviously were not convinced of the Government 's intentions. The Government has consulted the various States and the Australian Transport Advisory Council and it had the unanimous approval of that body. Thus, the minor works programs could have been carried out and the Federal Minister would have been in a position to accede to requests by the States for minor works and emergency works to be approved under the Commonwealth legislation. But that was denied us. Consequently, the Government's hands are completely tied. Of course, it was part of the argument at the time that everything should go from the public sector to the private sector. Contractual arrangements, I think, had been made by the contractor organisations and the Opposition in the Senate decided to listen to their demands rather than those of State government instrumentalities. Senator HARRADINE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It relates to the total exclusion of Japanese long line fishing boats from fishing southern bluefin tuna in the Australian fishing zone south of 34 degrees south. Is the Minister aware that this came as a surprise to Tasmanian businesses at the cost of jobs and an estimated $3.5m? Has the Government taken steps to assist those affected by this decision? Is it not a fact that there are no major Australian fishing vessels operating for bluefin tuna south of 40 degrees south? Did the Japanese refusal to reduce its catch to the level the Government considered appropriate to safeguard parent stock come as a surprise to the Government? Will the Government consult with the businesses affected to obtain first hand the effects on them of its decision? In the long term, will it establish machinery which will enable orderly discussions and timely warnings of changed fishing arrangements which have such dislocating effects? Senator GRIMES —I am aware of the concern of the local business community in Senator Harradine's and my home State as a result of the restrictions on fishing of southern bluefin tuna in the southern seas. Senator Harradine will know that the negotiations concerning renewal of the agreement with Japan covering the access of Japanese long line fishermen to the Australian fishing zone was made against the background of the need to restrain the global catch of southern bluefin tuna because of grave concerns in Australia and New Zealand about the over-fishing of this important resource and the fear that such over-fishing was considerably damaging the future of the industry. At the last round of trilateral discussions held in Canberra earlier this year, Japan refused to take additional measures to restrain its catch despite the decisive management action which had been taken by Australia in this area. As a result of that action by the Japanese, Australia decided it would not be possible to allocate more southern bluefin tuna from the Australian fishing zone than the current domestic quota which is 14,500 tonnes. For that reason Japanese fishing boats will not be allowed to fish in the Australian fishing zone where they took substantial quantities of these tuna. The first round of negotiations on the renewal of the contracts was held on 10 September to 13 September. The second round started on 29 September and is continuing. The Minister expects to make an announcement soon. In the meantime, the Australian Government's decision holds. I think Senator Harradine and others realise why that decision was made. But there remains the very real problem that he mentioned with respect to southern Tasmanian businesses which have been the beneficiaries of this fishing. It would seem from the reports that I have had, and which I am sure Senator Harradine has had, that those businesses were taken by surprise at the apparent suddenness of the decision of the Australian authorities. I dare say that the preservation of the species had to be weighed against the effect on southern Tasmanian businessmen. Some days ago I asked the Minister directly concerned to take into consideration the views of the southern Tasmanian business community. I am awaiting an answer on that matter. I will take up with the Ministers concerned the matters that Senator Harradine has raised and the suggestions he has made and get him an answer as soon as possible . I share his concern that sudden changes in business conditions, such as this, are not beneficial to any section of the community. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It concerns the recent changes in the Government's shipbuilding policies. Can the Minister say what these changes are and what effect they will have on the competitiveness of the Australian shipbuilding industry? Senator BUTTON —I understand Senator Cook asking a question like this, because he is from Western Australia where there are at least two outstanding shipyards which have been very concerned about previous government policies and have been concerned to see that there is a change in Australian shipbuilding policy. Senator Cook is to be congratulated for his diligence in asking a question of this kind because the shipbuilding industry is very important to the Western Australian economy. A decision was made and announced last week on the question of government assistance to the shipbuilding industry. Senator Walters —What about the submarines? Senator BUTTON —There has been no decision on submarines or whales which, I believe, would be of more interest to Senator Walters. The essential element of that package of policies is the extension of the existing bounty for shipbuilding to cover ships built for export. The second small but important element is that the 2 per cent revenue duty currently charged on imported inputs to the Australian shipbuilding industry is being removed. Honourable senators will recall that in 1979 the Fraser Government-for some revenue gathering purpose, I suppose, rather than for any rational economic reason-imposed a revenue duty on a wide range of inputs into Australian industry. Slowly some of those are being removed. The removal of the revenue duty on inputs into the shipbuilding industry is now taking place. A third and important element in the policy announced is that the Government and I have had a series of meetings with shipbuilders and the shipbuilding unions. It has been made quite clear in the course of those discussions that the Government was not prepared to offer a package of assistance unless some agreement was reached between the shipbuilders and the unions on a wide range of issues which have been the cause of grave disruption in Australian shipbuilding yards over a number of years and have contributed to the Australian shipbuilding industry's decline in competitiveness. As a result of those meetings a wide range of issues relating to manning practices, demarcation between trades, uniformity of conditions in the industry and so on have been agreed on and placed on the agenda for continuing discussions between the unions and the shipbuilders. Unless those discussions proceed satisfactorily, the Government will not continue to provide the sort of package which was announced last week. That has been made quite clear. The other point I should mention is that the shipbuilding industry currently has some 80 registered shipbuilders eligible for the bounty which is paid at a rate of 25 per cent of value added to the cost of a ship. We have provided a series of criteria for registering genuine shipbuilders, as distinct from the 80 companies currently registered, so that the number of shipbuilders in Australia will be reduced as part of an essential process of restructuring. I think they are the essential elements of the package about which Senator Cook inquired. I conclude by making some reference to the Western Australian industry about which I believe he is naturally most concerned. The company, Australian Shipbuilding Industries (WA) Pty Ltd in Perth, has been very successful. It currently has under contract for export about 20 trawlers that are being built for export to South East Asia. Kailis in Western Australia also has a number of vessels under contract for export. The programs of those two yards are very much to be encouraged. ASI is currently competing with Singapore on price and time of delivery in terms of the refitting of vessels. That is a great achievement for an Australian company and should be recognised as such. If we can encourage those sorts of things across the industry by the sort of package of policies which the Government announced last week-that is the Government's contribution to that sort of encouragement-and see other shipbuilders in Australia turning in the same sort of performance, it will augur well for this country and particularly for that industry. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I take it that he has noted the advice in Syntec dated 1 October 1984 that there should be supplementary Budget measures-in effect, a mini-Budget-next autumn to cut the structural Budget deficit. Given that Syntec appears to have close links with the Commonwealth Treasury and in the past has seldom made such claims without similar advice being put forward by the Treasury, I ask: Has the Government been receiving advice from the Treasury or any other area of the bureaucracy that the structural deficit needs to be cut and/or that there needs to be a mini-Budget next autumn? If this nation is so misguided as to re-elect the Hawke Labor Government, will the Government be putting down a mini-Budget in the first half of next year? Senator BUTTON —If I can try to summarise what lawyers might call the ratio decidendi of Senator Lewis's question, it is simply this: Has the Government received advice from Treasury, first that the structural deficit needs to be cut and, secondly, that there ought to be a mini-Budget next year? The answer to both questions is no. Senator FOREMAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction seen the figures released on 8 October by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which show that the housing industry finished the 1983-84 financial year well ahead of the previous year? Is he also aware that in South Australia building approvals were almost double those of the 1982-83 financial year? Is the Minister of the opinion that part of the reason for the buoyancy in the housing market is the introduction of the Government's first home owners scheme? Will the Minister outline how South Australia will fare during the next three years under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement? Senator GRIMES —The buoyant state of the housing industry and the great increase in housing approvals and housing construction in the last year has been drawn to my attention and, I am sure, to the attention of every other honourable senator who, unless he or she is completely churlish and ungracious, must accept that this is one of the great success stories of this country in the last year. When we came to government the housing industry in this country was in a deplorable state with grossly unused capacity and high unemployment. As a result of the Government's first home owner scheme and its policies in the areas of public housing and assistance to the States there has been, as Senator Foreman said, a great improvement in this industry. As a result of that we are taking the first steps towards overcoming the housing shortages and difficulties we have had in this country for many years. There has been a great boost to employment and to the associated manufacturing industries in general. As Senator Foreman said, South Australia has been to the forefront because of the positive housing policies of the State Government in South Australia. Senator Messner —The prices are out of hand. Senator GRIMES —It is only people such as Senator Messner, who are not concerned about jobs and about homes, who can be at all critical of this sort of activity and who can take the Jeremiah-like approach that things are terrific now but later on they will be crook. Things will get crook only if, for some reason, insanity overtakes everyone and the Liberal Party of Australia gets back into government within the next 10 years, but that is not likely. As I said, South Australia has benefited considerably from that policy. I do not have in my mind or in a briefing here the exact details of the projections for South Australia in the next three years. If Senator Foreman arranged for them to be sent to me, something must have happened in the mail. I will obtain that information for Senator Foreman as soon as I can and will give it to him as soon as possible after Question Time. Senator BOSWELL —I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: If he is worried about the increasing on-costs to businesses which the recent arbitration decision on redundancy provisions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions controlled Building Unions Superannuation Fund will cause, can he explain why the Government supported the ACTU submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on redundancy provisions when these provisions will cost businesses, on the ACTU's figures, $165m a year? Will the Government oppose the ACTU-controlled superannuation push which would ruin many Australian businesses and condemn many thousands of people to the dole queues? Senator BUTTON —The question of on-costs is of great concern to the Government. I have expressed that concern on a number of occasions, as have other Ministers. Senator Boswell's question is particularly directed to the decision made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the so-called redundancy case. The Government supported the general thrust of improved redundancy provisions. I make the point that some of the many letters that one receives about these things always refer to Government legislation. It is not Government legislation; it is a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Senator Boswell —But you supported it. Senator BUTTON —I said that a minute ago; that it is still an independent body. I just say that a wide range of bodies made submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The essence of the decision is to incorporate in Federal awards some of the conditions which were already included in a wide range of State government awards. I think that is very important. Senator Withers —State awards, not State government awards. Senator BUTTON —State awards, I am sorry-awards made under State jurisdiction. Senator Chaney —The same mistake was made when referring to legislation. Senator BUTTON —Yes. That was not my mistake; it was somebody else's. It is very difficult to answer the question when there are so many contributors, Mr President. As I said, the decision brings Federal awards into line with many awards made under State jurisdictions. It provides protection against discrimination and unfair dismissal, an improved period of notice both by the employee and the employer in respect of termination of employment and a number of consultative requirements relating to the introduction of technological change. As Senator Boswell well knows, general severance pay standards are included in the decision. These provisions are not inconsistent with a wide range of provisions applicable, as I have already said, in State awards and overseas. Like any changes that take place, they will be seen as difficulties and there is no doubt that costs will be added to industry. In terms of overall on-costs to industry, I think a very small contribution will be made by this decision. The standards which will apply are, in the view of the Government, important and will encourage adherence to the general level of industrial peace that has prevailed in this country in the last 18 months. Senator Boswell also asked me about what he called the superannuation push. I am not in a position to comment about that. The push, as he calls it, is the articulation of the views of several pressure groups-lobby groups, or whatever one likes to call them-in this society. The Government has not defined the position in relation to the so- called superannuation push at this stage. Indeed , Senator Boswell would know that there has been some discussion about the possible trade-off for superannuation of productivity increases which might be awarded in a decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission next year. All those discussions are taking place. It is not my business or the Government' s business to intrude at this stage. The view of the Government will be announced in due course. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister for Social Security seen the article in today' s Age headed 'Child Support Awards unrealistic, study finds', which reports the study by the Institute of Family Studies commissioned by the Family Law Council for guidelines on maintenance payments in the Family Court? Is the Minister aware of the findings, which report that not only maintenance but also family allowances and pension child supplements are insufficient to meet the real costs of rearing a child in 1984? Can the Minister comment on the report and its findings and on whether the Government will be responding to the report? Senator GRIMES —I did see the article referring to the report. Unfortunately I have not received a copy of the report, nor has my Department, although I will be asking the Department and my office to obtain a copy as soon as possible. I understand that, as I think Senator Crowley implied, the report is aimed primarily at assisting the Family Law Council with clearer guidelines on maintenance for use by the Family Court in determination of payments in this area. In this context the determination of maintenance by the Family Court falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Attorney-General. I am, of course, concerned about arrangements for maintenance in this area and I am concerned that it should be of maximum benefit to the parent who has the responsibility for the child. With respect to the social security payments Senator Crowley mentioned, family allowances and their precursors-child endowment, tax deductions and, later, tax rebates that we have had in this country over many years-have never been intended to cover the full costs of raising children. They are intended to supplement the incomes of those who raise children and are some recognition of the costs of parenthood, but they are certainly not meant to cover the full costs. While increases in the level of general family allowances have not kept up with inflation since they were introduced, this must be considered in a budgetary context. I point out that to increase family allowances by $1 a week would cost $225m a year. So the scope for increase in this area, particularly in tight budgetary situations in times of high deficits, is not very great, no matter how much the Minister for Social Security or other senators would like to increase it. The Government has, however, targeted increased payments to pensioners and beneficiaries with children and single supporting parent pensioners with children, so that the increases in funds we did have available in this area were directed to those in most need. I will look at the report when I obtain a copy. I would certainly like to respond to it at some time. As I have not seen a copy, I do not think I am in a position to respond any more than I already have. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator DURACK —During the Grievance Debate in the House of Representatives on Thursday, 11 October, Mr Tickner referred to representations which had been made to me as Attorney-General in June and July 1982 by Mr Birney, MP, and the late Sir Ernest White in support of a no bill application by Mr Morgan Ryan. Also the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, in answer to a question on 9 October, alleged that the question of 'committing Morgan Ryan for trial had been before me for over twelve months' and that he had not been committed for trial by the Liberal Government. Mr Ryan had been committed for trial on 22 March 1982 on charges of conspiracy and being knowingly concerned in an offence of forgery. His trial was scheduled to commence on 19 July 1982 but was adjourned as a result of the application for the no bill. There was nothing new in the story that approaches had been made to the previous Government on behalf of Morgan Ryan. That matter was raised in the New South Wales Parliament by Mr Wran, I think, on 29 February this year and reported the next day. This has been ac- knowledged by Mr Fraser and there was nothing unusual or improper about such representations. However, Mr Tickner alleged that I was 'prepared to act on the representations and grant the no bill application provided that political criticism was not likely to be forthcoming'. He later said: Clearly a cloud hangs over the head of Senator Durack into this matter . . . Later in the day I issued a Press statement rejecting these allegations. However , Mr Tickner's allegations were widely reported in the newspapers published on Friday morning, but only some papers published my denial. In particular the Australian and the Daily Telegraph ran front page stories without reference to my denial. I shall now read the statement I issued last Thursday evening: I totally reject the allegations made in the House by Mr Robert Tickner that I had decided to agree to a 'no bill' application in the case of Mr Morgan Ryan. The only action I took before falling ill was to ask for an independent counsel 's opinion. The application from Mr Ryan's solicitors was forwarded to me by Mr Jack Birney , MP, and was subsequently supported by representations from Sir Ernest White to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. It was received in my office on 23 July 1982 and sent to the Attorney-General's Department for its advice. It was supported by a good deal of material including a QC's opinion. For those reasons I decided to obtain a counsel's opinion independent from the Department. That was obtained and sent to my office on 13 September. I never saw it because I was taken to hospital later that day suffering a heart attack. The decision to reject the application was taken by the Acting Attorney-General , Mr Brown, on 3 November. The matter was before the Fraser Government for just over 4 months. After Mr Brown's decision, Mr Ryan had to take his place in the queue for a new hearing date. That of course had absolutely nothing to do with the Fraser Government. The fact is that I made no decision at all in relation to the application other than to request my Department to obtain a counsel's opinion. After that opinion was received, the matter was dealt with by the then Acting Attorney-General, Mr Neil Brown, who also sought an opinion from the then Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers. The opinions were to the effect that the conspiracy charge should proceed, and it did proceed. However, a new trial date had to be obtained and that did not occur until July 1983. Claims were also made by Mr Tickner and the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, that it was the present Attorney's decision to send Mr Ryan for trial. Although it may be technically correct that the indictment was filed on his behalf, the effective decision to send Mr Ryan for trial was made by Mr Brown when he rejected the application for the no bill. Both the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Tickner made grave accusations against me without any foundation and I repudiate them with the contempt they deserve. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator TEAGUE —Last Wednesday in the Senate there was a spirited debate during Question Time about the Labor Government's assets test and my opposition to it. Senator Elstob alleged that I had made a statement in the Press in South Australia in these terms: . . . that the social security inspectors will enter people's homes to assess personal assets when the assets test is introduced. Since that time I have been able to read the Hansard and check the Press. No such statement appears anywhere in the Press in South Australia. I ask Senator Elstob and Senator Grimes to acknowledge that at no stage have I referred to inspectors entering people's homes. That is the first point. The second point is that, based on that statement, Senator Grimes went on to say that this was a deliberate lie on my part, and he withdrew that at your request, Mr President. The third point is that he said this was the technique of using the big lie. He did not withdraw that, despite Senator Missen's appeal on my behalf, because he was not asked to do so by you, Mr President. The fourth matter which I include in this personal explanation is that Senator Grimes alleged that this claimed statement, for which there is no foundation, was made with the obvious intention of worrying elderly people. I reject that, first of all because I did not make the statement, and secondly because I do not intend to worry elderly people. But there is one other matter. He referred to my maiden speech in the Senate six years ago and said that I had 'made great play' of the fact that I was a Christian. Without boring the Senate, in a good natured way I will quote the one sentence from my maiden speech which refers to this. I said: As a Christian I believe parliament's authority is derived from God and, thus, it is entirely right that we begin our parliamentary sittings each day in prayer asking the Lord's blessing and direction that our work be to the glory of God and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. I claim to have been misrepresented in all those respects. I ask that those matters that refer to the technique of the deliberate lie be withdrawn by Senator Grimes and especially the statement made by Senator Elstob. Finally- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is not entitled to ask for anything in making a personal explanation by leave. He can make a personal explanation and that is all. That is all he has been given leave to do. Senator TEAGUE —I take your advice, Mr President. I certainly want to make it clear in my personal explanation that I have been misrepresented in those four ways. The only reference to the assets test in the media, not in the Press, in South Australia in the past week was to a radio statement which has been given some cover in which I used the phrase 'intruding into your lives'. I maintain that that is no basis for the alleged statement 'inspectors are entering into your homes'. I make that personal explanation because I believe that in this matter as in every other matter, however much we may oppose a policy of the Government such as this assets test, there is an obligation on all of us to speak the truth and not provoke one another in the Senate by making false claims . Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I seek leave to make a brief statement on the same matter. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I am somewhat surprised at Senator Teague's statement. The origin of the question from Senator Elstob and my answer was the fact that he and I had received reports from a number of sources that it had been reported on the radio in South Australia that Senator Teague had made statements about inspectors knocking on people's doors and intruding into people's homes. Senator Teague —Not at all. Senator GRIMES —Just hold on; I am not trying to be provocative. I have been accused of- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. We have had, in the normal course, a personal explanation in which Senator Teague canvassed the matters which have been raised in debate and explained what he had actually said . My point of order simply is that it does not fall to any of us in this place to deny the factual situation which has been put forward. I take it that the Minister, from the way he is gesturing to me at the moment, is not seeking to do that. I would have expected him not to do so and I would not think it would be in order if he did. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Teague sought leave to make a personal explanation. Leave was granted and Senator Teague made that personal explanation. Senator Grimes then sought leave to make a statement on the same matter. Leave was given to him to make a statement on the same matter. Senator Grimes has the call. Senator GRIMES —Unless one believes in mass hallucination, one has to accept that the reports were made. Senator Teague told us today that he was reported on the radio as saying this sort of thing. As a result of that- Senator Peter Baume —He did not say that. He said exactly what he said. Senator GRIMES —Just hold on. All right; he said words to that effect about intruding into people's homes. Senator Peter Baume —In their lives. Senator GRIMES —Okay. Firstly, I will accept that what Senator Teague said was ' intruding into people's lives'. I am sorry if people interpreted him as saying ' intruding into their homes'. Secondly, we had further evidence that very same day that Senator Teague had said something of that kind in the Press. Senator Teague —No, I didn't say that. Senator GRIMES —I will quote what Senator Teague said. When Senator Teague made his personal explanation on page 1552 of the Hansard he was talking about what I had said. He said: I was protesting about two things. One was that as I genuinely understood the situation-until the assurances freshly given by the Minister here today in the Senate-in the case of any disputed valuation there would be a knock on the door and a visit by a representative of the Department of Social Security to an age pensioner. That is what Senator Teague said. It is in the Hansard. Senator Teague —Intruding into people's lives. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator said: . . . a knock on the door and a visit . . . My answer to Senator Elstob's question was about knocking on doors. Senator Teague went on to say: . . . I have been bona fide in my remarks in opposition to the assets test. He explained that a part of that opposition was the fact that he thought men were going to knock on doors. For heavens sake! He is indulging in semantics if he gets up in this place and says that what he really meant to say was that these people were only going to intrude into pensioner's lives and not their homes when they were going to go and knock on the doors. His words about knocking on the doors are in the Hansard. Why should I withdraw the statement that I had received reports which have obviously been interpreted by people in South Australia as meaning knocking on doors when the honourable senator gets up in this place and talks about knocking on doors? I think that Senator Teague really has to sort himself out. If he is going to make statements in the Press which worry people-we have had reports that people were worried-he has to accept the consequences of it in this place. Senator Elstob —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the same matter. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(3.19) —The Opposition brings this matter forward for discussion as a matter of public importance because it believes that the refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election is asking for a blank cheque. Its asking for a blank cheque on matters of taxation policy ignores its rhetoric and its record on taxation policy since 1982. The Opposition will be perfectly happy to announce its own policy in detail next week. We believe that, as we are now in an election campaign, the people of Australia ought to have an opportunity to contrast the policies of the Opposition and the Government and to consider the requirements of those policies on each taxpayer in the three years ahead. It was of interest that at Question Time today the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) was able to be very explicit about shipbuilding policy . A number of other policies are canvassed in great detail in dorothy dix type questions that are addressed to Ministers in the Senate day after day. Yet it is not possible to have the Government's policy on taxation. There is a very old saying: 'No taxation without representation'. No blank cheque ought to be given before this early election to the highest taxing government in Australia's history. We have had a response from the Government that taxation policy is subject to a review at present. This review, which we understand is being conducted through the Economic Planning Advisory Council in consultation with all sections of the community, is hardly the basis of a policy on which to face the electorate. We have brought forward this matter of public importance because it is important to look at the Government's policy, rhetoric and performance since 1983. A number of quite explicit statements were made prior to the last election , in the policy speech of 16 February 1983. There was the quite unequivocal statement that less than one per cent of Australians will pay higher taxes. We need to contrast that statement with the performance of the Government. If we look at the Budgets that have been brought in by the Government following its election we realise that the Australian people are paying much higher taxes. In fact, one million people have moved into a higher tax bracket as a result of the last Budget. I do not think that we could tell the people who have received their income tax assessments that they will be paying lower taxes or that less than one per cent will pay higher taxes because their assessments are revealing that there is a great change in their tax refunds. Indeed, in some cases they are required to pay tax instead of getting the refund that they thought they would have received. The following quite unequivocal statement was made in respect of the Hawke housing plan in February 1984: We will retain tax rebates for home loan interest payments. That is something that ought to be tested against performance too. In an interview reported in the Australian of 23 February 1983 Mr Hawke assured voters that there would be no increases in indirect tax. Yet the performance of the Government shows quite the reverse. That statement made in February 1983 could scarcely be sustained in the light of the indexation of indirect taxes and the other changes that have been made. On 11 February 1983 Mr Hawke said: Now one thing you will find throughout this campaign is that I am not going to make promises I cannot keep. That is another promise that he was not able to keep. All of the promises that I have outlined with regard to tax policy have not been kept. They have been ignored or reversed. The Australian Labor Party policy speech of February last year contained the following statement: There will be no new capital gains tax. It also contained the further statement: We will not be bringing in any death duties. Those statements were made before the last election. Yet the Government is not prepared to make those statements before this election. It is hiding behind a review which has been surveying the position for many months. The Government is not at this stage making such categorical statements with regard to capital gains tax or death duties. I think it is easy to see why the Government is not doing that. As I said, the Government was prepared to make statements of the kind I have just read prior to the last election. It is not unfair to say that the Government has been backing and filling on the issue of capital gains tax ever since it came to office. It is no wonder that there has been considerable concern amongst small businesses and that the predictability and certainty required for investment have been undermined by the way in which the Government is approaching tax policy. Remember, that Mr Hawke said on 16 February 1983: There will be no new capital gains tax. This reflected earlier comments made by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, at the July 1982 Federal Labor Conference which led up to the 1983 election. I think it is more than fair to quote the comment made by Mr Keating after the election. In a bit of stage management prior to the election we were told that a capital gains tax would not be introduced. However, after the election, Mr Keating said: The views I put at Labor Party Conferences were views I put with the aim of getting into Government. The debate has moved on. We are now in Government. I think that that is the most important statement that ought to be assessed by the Australian electorate as we go into this election. The Labor Party is now in government. It made commitments to get itself into government but the debate has moved on and the tax has moved up. Since coming into office so many Ministers and members of Cabinet have made statements that are relative to the points that I am making that it is worth saying that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Lionel Bowen, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, the Minister for Defence Support, Mr Howe, and the Chairman of the Caucus industry committee, Dr Theophanous, have all called for a capital gains tax. It is no wonder that we say that the Government should come clean in the election campaign as to what its intentions are and what its review is expected to result in for the Australian taxpayer. The Prime Minister in an interview at the Singapore-Australia Business Council breakfast in February 1984 was asked whether his Government intended to introduce a further capital gains tax, death duties or any other capital transfer tax. His response in that interview was: I'm not in a position to say that we will make any such decisions in that area. That was pre-Budget of 1984. The taxes that were referred to-further capital gains taxes, death duties or any other capital transfer taxes-were not included in the present Budget because it is an election Budget. The Budget of 1984 is unashamedly an election Budget. The Government has promised that there will be a review of its taxation policy after it faces the Australian electorate. However, it has certainly given no assurances that those taxes will not be embarked upon after the election. On 26 January 1984 the Prime Minister said: In the August Budget my Government will aim to do two things: to contain the Budget deficit, and to provide, to the extent we are able, significant income tax reductions to lower and middle income earners. That objective was not sustained. The majority of Australian taxpayers will receive a tax reduction of $7.60 a week. That, of course, is a reduction in the increase in tax which taxpayers sustained in the Budget, not a real reduction in tax rates or a real reduction in tax that was payable. Again, the Prime Minister in an interview in January 1984 said: Let me say that if we, as a government, look at the question of taxation in the capital area, it would not be done precipitately, not without full consultation, and most importantly, it wouldn't be done in a way which did not take account of the particular requirements of the rural sector. We are not going to rush into new measures. The Government is not rushing into new measures but it has rushed into an election. The big question mark of this election is what the Government is going to do in respect of capital gains tax, tax that affects the rural sector and tax that affects individuals. We believe that before the six or seven weeks of the election campaign are exhausted the Government will find again and again that that big question mark will be a big minus as far as the electorate is concerned . People want to know how an election will affect them and their capacity to manage their own affairs and deal with their own responsibilities. They also want to know exactly what proposals will result from the tax review which is being undertaken at present. The Prime Minister, again at the Singapore-Australian Business Council meeting in February, this year was asked by a journalist: Is it intended by the Federal Government to introduce third capital gains tax, death duties, or other capital transfer tax and if so, how long would you like to see it after the next Federal election? The Prime Minister made the throwaway line that he welcomed the implication that he would be making decisions after the next Federal election. But he took no opportunity to assure the Australian electorate that such taxes were not being contemplated. I referred to a number of Ministers who support the introduction of capital gains taxes. I take this opportunity to refer to the comments of Mr Howe as reported on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM program in March of this year. Senator Button —Howe or Howard? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Mr Howe, the Minister for Defence Support. Senator Button —Howard is your chap, isn't he? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — Howard is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr Howe, the Minister for Defence Support, said: We have to, I think, make up our minds whether we are really on about equity or not . . . We need to look, I believe this year, at the whole question of capital gains and taxes on estate and gift duty. I think those issues are extremely important. If we are going to be able to meet commitments on the other side of the ledger in terms of really improving pensions and benefits, getting to the 25 per cent of average weekly earnings, our target which we could achieve this year with a substantial measure such as the introduction of a capital gains tax or even with the introduction of the assets test. We have had the introduction of the assets test, and obviously Mr Howe supported that. Mr Howe is still waiting for the introduction of the capital gains tax so that he can fulfil those other objectives that he mentioned. I find it somewhat extraordinary that the Government seems to want to govern by some sort of referral to public demand on such issues as tax policy in the way in which the Prime Minister repeatedly puts them forward. He came into government and, with the prices and incomes accord, he has sought to lock in business, unions and government. He has tried to give the impression that business is locked into the prices and incomes accord, no matter how often business makes it clear that the accord institutionalises unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and we find the same sort of approach to taxation policy. In the Melbourne Age of 5 June 1984 the Prime Minister was quoted as saying: We'll ask the business community, we'll ask the trade unions, we'll ask relevant informed academics, we'll ask community organisations to talk to us about the whole structure of tax in this country. He again commented that it was a post-election tax review. To go into an election with a tax review hanging over the heads of the people without giving some direction as to the general tax priorities that the Government sees for the future is a remarkable approach to a major election policy. We have found, and the people of Australia realise, that, with the growth of money incomes, more and more are moving into higher tax brackets. They are paying higher tax rates on increases in incomes which reflect only inflation or consumer price index adjustments, not increases in real purchasing power. The figures in this respect are quite noteworthy. Four hundred thousand Australians with modest incomes moved into the 46c in the dollar tax bracket last financial year and it is estimated that a further one million Australians will move into higher tax brackets during 1984-85. That can hardly stand up against the promises going into the last election that everybody, except about one per cent, would get lower taxes. People are moving into a higher tax bracket simply because of CPI adjustments to their wages and about one million of them will be moving into that 46c in the dollar bracket on part of their incomes in this financial year. This can be exemplified by figures such as those I wish to cite. Two years ago a person had to earn 10 per cent more than male average weekly earnings before entering the 46c in the dollar tax bracket. By the end of this financial year someone earning 0.5 per cent less than male average weekly earnings will pay 46c on every extra dollar earned. I can hardly think of a better way in which to exemplify what has happened to tax rates and collections. We talk of male average weekly earnings. We talk of objectives for the purchasing power of average weekly earnings. We pretend that under the prices and incomes accord something magical has happened to the purchasing power of people's incomes and the way in which they are able to deal with their responsibilities. Yet we find that one million more of them are entering a higher tax bracket this financial year. Our repeated search for the Government's approach to tax policy makes us look at some of the things that have occurred since the Australian Labor Party entered government. The Labor Party has abolished a whole range of tax rebates, thus adding to the average family's tax burden. The special income levy for Medicare has added to the costs of many families. It is quite apparent-and we have had debates on this subject on other occasions-that either the levy should be raised or it should be regarded as a token contribution to health insurance because it does not cover the increased cost of Medicare in the Budget. We estimate that the one per cent levy raises only something over a half of what is required according to the figures in the Budget. We said in an earlier debate that a further 0.7 per cent levy would be needed to cover the extra cost of Medicare in the current Budget. I again make the point that this is an election Budget. It had some deceit in its figures because many measures are simply temporary. Senator Button —'Deceit' or 'receipt'? Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE —Deceit. They are measures to get over the election, and if Labor wins the coming election there will be a massive boost in taxation to finance the deferred and controversial programs. Mr Barry Jones, one of Senator Button's colleagues, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation World Today program on 24 August said: One of the greatest advantages of having an early election is that you will have a clear run for three years, right up to the bi-centenary period . . . in that three year Parliament you can raise money perhaps by increasing taxation, or finding new sources of taxation to do things that are expensive, or you would not be game to do, you would not be keen to do, three or four months before an election. That is why the Government is keen to have a review behind which it can hide to get the election over and which can perhaps cover up some of the comments made by members of the Labor Party. Mr Hand, a member of the House of Representatives , was quoted in the National Times in August of this year as saying: So of course there has to be some form of capital taxes! We don't run away from that. There just has to be. When asked whether it would be an issue in the next Parliament, he said: Oh yes, it's on. No risk about that. Yet that is not mentioned as part of Labor's policy. The Prime Minister was quoted in August of this year as saying: We do not believe that taxation reform will be to Australia's advantage if it involves overall increases in taxation as distinct from greater efficiency and equity in the system. The Labor Government does not believe that higher overall levels of taxation are necessary for substantial reductions in the deficit, for improved equity, or for enhanced efficiency of our economic system. That comment was made post-Budget by the Prime Minister. In that I think we got a very salutary reminder that it is not the objective of this Government to have lower taxes. The Prime Minister believed that he was making a very remarkable statement when he said: 'We do not believe that it will involve overall increases'. In other words, no decreases are able to be promised. I would have thought that a government which has been the highest taxing government in Australia's history, certainly the highest since Mr Whitlam's leadership, and which has had a 23 per cent rise in total personal income tax receipts this year ought to be going into an election with some promises of tax relief. Instead, the taxation policy of the Government is a review which can allow the Government to hide the objective with regard to new taxes, either capital gains or death duties, or whatever range of taxes-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(3.38) —Early in her comments on this matter of the taxation policies of the Government Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, referring to a previous period in history, said: 'The debate has moved on'. That was the saddest comment in her speech because, to judge from her speech, the debate has not moved on at all. We have regurgitated in her speech the lowest common denominator of political debate in Australia; that is to say, the Liberal Party of Australia in its traditional role as threat experts . Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred to Dorothy Dix questions being asked about the economy at Question Time in the Senate. I think we are entitled to a few Dorothy Dix questions. We get precious few questions about the economy from the Opposition. That is not surprising, because our view of the Opposition's economic capacity is the same as that of two-thirds of the Australian people. They would be disastrous economic managers. There are plenty of reasons for saying that. The debate has not moved on because Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle sees political debate in terms of threats, not in terms of rational political debate. Let me remind honourable senators of a few things about the Opposition of this country. Seven weeks ago Mr Peacock announced the start of his election campaign. He said: 'Liberal tax policies are different'. Different from what? What are they? They still have not been announced. So how do the people know whether Liberal tax policies are different or not? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle concentrated on capital gains tax as a threat, as Liberal governments have done in the past years and as this Opposition now seeks to do. Was it not at the much vaunted Thredbo conference of members of the Liberal Party, the so-called think tank, that Professor Russell Mathews advised them about the importance of a capital gains tax? What is Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's view about that? What is any Opposition senator's view about that? On a number of occasions other commentators have dealt with the question of a capital gains tax-for example, the Business Council of Australia, the Economic Planning Advisory Council and Mr Howard, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. However, there was no contribution in this debate towards the importance of any of those issues. I would have thought that in attempting to make a contemporary contribution to the tax debate Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle might have referred to some of the views expressed by Mr Tony Berg at the business congress that has just taken place or is taking place. There we get the essence of an important public debate about taxation issues. We do not get it from the Opposition. I say quite plainly right at the beginning that this Government has said that it will conduct a review of the tax system next year. We have said that on a number of occasions. I remind Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, who apparently finds that reprehensible, of her seven years as a Minister in the Fraser Government-latterly as Minister for Finance. Does she remember when the late Sir Phillip Lynch suggested it might be a good idea to consider the taxation of certain welfare payments and what the Fraser Government did about that? Does she remember when Mr John Howard, the former Treasurer, was circulating publicly papers on a value added tax in Australia at the time of the razor gang? What happened to these matters? Nothing happened. She had seven years in which to do something about reforming the tax system and she did nothing. She now complains about this Government's conduct in its 18 months in office. Of course, we have committed ourselves to a review of the taxation system and it will take place, but it will not result in any overall increase in taxation levels. It is very difficult to debate tax policy with the Opposition. There is no Opposition policy on taxation. There is confusion and contradiction within the Opposition on the issue of taxation. The Liberal-National record in government, to which I referred briefly, was appalling. I refer honourable senators to the view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), when he said: ' Liberal tax policy is different'. There is not an inkling as to what it is in the shadow Minister's speech, only a suggestion that this Government poses enormous threats perhaps in terms of a capital gains tax or death duties. We still do not have the Opposition's tax policy. It will be brought out after the Parliament has risen so that it cannot be debated. This is typical of the Opposition's incapacity to get its act together on specific issues. For example, only a month or two ago Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, opposed the introduction of a wine tax tooth and nail, as I think he described it, and Mr Howard, the discredited former Treasurer, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and heir apparent, said he supported a wine tax at the National Press Club on 29 August. Similarly Mr Peacock is adamantly opposed to a capital gains tax and Mr Howard is not adamantly opposed to a capital gains tax. Will the real Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle please stand up on that issue? The Liberal-National Party record in government in honouring campaign promises relating to taxation matters and all other matters was deplorable. It was deplorable on tax indexation, the level of taxation and business taxes. That period in government was the culmination of a period in which this country gradually slipped down the hit parade in terms of relative standards of living. Those in opposition now cannot escape that fact. As well, the Opposition-Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle amongst them as a former senior Minister-let billions of dollars slip through its fingers through the growth of the tax avoidance industry to the detriment of every pay as you earn taxpayer in Australia. There was a boom in tax avoidance under the previous Government. The Commissioner of Taxation in his latest report stated: I assumed office as Commissioner on 14 June 1984. I succeeded Mr W. J. O'Reilly , who went into honoured retirement on reaching the age of 65 years. At that time the boom in the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes of the kind experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s was a thing of the past. He continued: While the boom was on, the whole tax administration system was strained and the Australian Taxation Office was unable to get done all it wished to do. So the Opposition's pathetic record on taxation speaks for itself. It has no credibility on this issue. This Government has moved to give a tax cut which is significant and genuine. Senator Chaney —Rubbish. Senator BUTTON —I hope the honourable senator will say that on the hustings. Is he going to take the tax cut away? The cut in personal income taxes announced in the Budget is $7.40 for an ordinary taxpayer and a significant amount for those on low and middle incomes. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It is $7.60. Senator BUTTON —Taxpayers with an annual income of between $12,500 and $28,000 will receive a tax benefit of $7.60 a week, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle points out. I am indebted to her for that comment. It is the only accurate thing she has said this afternoon. For those earning between the tax threshold-that is , $4,595 and $12,500-the tax cut is almost 17 per cent and those earning more than $28,000 also receive a tax cut, but it is steadily reduced as incomes exceed $28,000, to a flat $2.79 a week for incomes above $35,000. The $7.60 tax cut applies to all low and middle income full time workers. This is a larger tax cut than would have been provided to those workers under the tax indexation arrangement which was introduced and then abolished by the previous Government. Under the former Fraser Government's indexation rules, indexation would have provided a tax cut of $2.30 a week for workers earning up to $374 a week and $7. 49 a week for those earning between $406 and $686 a week. That was the former Government's view of progressivity in the taxation system. There would have been a much smaller tax cut for the vast majority of workers. I just make the point that this tax cut has been achieved together with a reduction in the deficit. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle referred to promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) before the election. One promise he also made was that the Fraser Government had to tell the truth about the size of the deficit, which it never did. The fact of the matter is that the deficit is now down to under $8 billion from the $9.6 billion inherited from the administration of Mr Howard. In 1984-85 we are budgeting for a deficit of $6.7 billion. To date, two Budgets have reduced the Budget deficit by about 30 per cent, or almost $3 billion. It is not surprising that the recent Age-Herald poll reveals that 54 per cent of the people have confidence in this Government as economic managers. The Opposition is simply scaremongering with references to capital gains tax, death duties and the like because it does not have an issue to run with. Do members of the Opposition say that these things should never be on the agenda for consideration by an Australian government? Is that what they say? Senator Chaney will have an opportunity to tell us. He will speak later in the debate. Does he say that in a serious tax debate these things that are raised by the business community, by this Government and by a wide range of commentators should not be in the arena of political debate, because that is what Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's remarks amount to. One expects this sort of behaviour, this threat expert stuff, to continue for the next few weeks. I want to put this Government's position on the record in relation to capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and similar things. All sorts of claims have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle about the Government preparing Cabinet submissions on these taxes. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —I did not say that. Senator BUTTON —The implication is there, Senator. No such submissions have been prepared or are being prepared. The Government is not currently considering any of these matters. We are committed to a review of the taxation system and there are no proposals before the Government to introduce these taxes at present. But we do believe that there is scope for a review and reform of the tax system to make it more efficient and more equitable and to give the average Australian a fair go. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle made no reference to those matters in her speech. Perhaps she has a sentimental attachment to the taxation policies and regime of the Fraser Government of which she was part, because she made no reference to the need for tax reform, to the need for a more efficient and equitable system and to giving the average Australian a fairer go. Because of the fundamental importance that the Government attaches to this issue, it will be consulting widely with community groups, as indicated, including through EPAC , rather than announcing policies designed for perceived short term political advantage. Any reform of the tax system will not result in any overall increase in the levels of taxes. The review will be comprehensive. It is pointless to speculate on any particular tax options because the Government has no preconceived ideas on the outcome. I have some preconceived ideas. I think I am entitled to that. I get a vote, like everybody else. I am allowed to think about the tax system and, I would have thought, to express a view about it. I am particularly enjoined, I would think, to express a view about business taxes in Australia because that is my job. But, as I have said on a number of occasions, the Government has not made decisions about these matters and it has no preconceived ideas about them. Certainly the Opposition has none because, as I have said, there was no reference in the speech which has just been made to any of those important issues which have been raised by others in the taxation debate. As to the need for a comprehensive review, we have some supporters on the Opposition side. At the National Press Club on 29 August this year Mr Howard, in answer to a question as to whether a part of a restructuring of the tax system should include an effective capital gains tax, said: I think I was asked at the last National Press Club luncheon the same question . . . and I said then that there are no arguments within a total restructuring of the system for what you have said. In view of that statement, any attempt by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or anybody else to suggest that a review of the tax system implies in some way a prior commitment to the introduction of particular taxes and the exclusion of others applies more to him than it does to the Government. I repeat: There is not and will not be any official position taken by the Government on tax reform in advance of a review which is necessary and has to be comprehensive and fair. Despite the fact that there is yet no Opposition tax policy, after 18 months, we are entitled to ask where the money is coming from in respect of a whole range of Opposition promises already made-for perceived political advantage at the election, I suppose. Given some of the commitments already made by this Opposition if it is elected to government, tax policy will be fascinating. Let us look at some of the policies which it has already promised in the area of taxation. It has unequivocally promised to abolish lump sum superannuation tax at a cost of $300m. It has promised to abolish the coal export levy at a cost of $60m. Half of the Opposition is going to abolish the wine tax. Mr Howard, I take it, would not. The cost of that would be $62m. The Opposition has promised to abolish the new oil excise at a cost of $17m. It would extend the investment allowance and increase the rate to 20 per cent at a cost of $600m. It would provide a special tax deduction for manufacturing systems at a cost of about $ 10m. It would abolish the double taxation of dividends at a cost of $400m. It would introduce a 50 per cent premium for deductions in relation to research expenditures at a cost of $90m. Those unequivocal commitments already made by this Opposition, in the absence of any tax policy, amount to $1.8 billion. What is Monday's tax policy going to say? No wonder the Opposition does not want it released before the Parliament rises. It does not stop there. Senator Chaney —At least we will release ours. Senator BUTTON —I hope the Opposition will. It was promised some seven weeks ago . But the Opposition does not stop there as there are more commitments. The biggest of these is a change to the taxation system itself. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has circulated a paper which lends support to a flat rate tax that might cost about $4 billion. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Where is that? Senator BUTTON —He has circulated a paper which he has endorsed. The Leader of the Opposition has some other ideas. He wants to raise the tax threshold sufficiently to get the 46c rate above the highest possible average weekly earnings measure. That would be cheaper, at a cost of about $2 billion. But that is on top of firm promises totalling $1.8 billion which I have already referred to and which would not give one cent to ordinary taxpayers. The grand total of all these promises adds to a magnificent sum of about $5 billion, double the deficit faced by the Commonwealth. We have to face the fact that all these pre-election promises are phoney or have not been thought out or that the taxation policy, when it is announced, will indeed be a phoney or perhaps there will be massive new sales taxes or something of that kind. It is fair to ask what the Opposition's new taxes will be and where the money will be coming from. The fact is that this Government has been quite open about the need for a tax review. The tax review which the Government has proposed will be discussed by a wide range of bodies-EPAC, the Business Council of Australia and others. The article to which I referred by Mr Tony Berg and reported in today's Press highlights from one particular point of view the need for tax reform, a need which has been highlighted by others but not by the Liberal Party of Australia. This Government is not, in terms of any undertaking it gives, about to spring anything on anyone but it will proceed with a full public debate and consultation about the nature of tax change in this community. The Opposition had seven years to do it. It is responsible for some of the worst inequities in the taxation system insofar as business and industry in this country are concerned. It had in those seven years large majorities and the opportunity to take on some of the pressing tasks. No wonder this country went downhill in the period of that regime, because nothing was done. The Opposition comes in here today threatening that somehow this Government is committed to some taxes which the Opposition feels have a sort of spooky quality and which are useful for striking terror in the hearts of little old ladies in white tennis shoes, which used to be an expression commonly used in the Senate. It is a discreditable performance from a discreditable Opposition. Senator Chaney —This is the most discreditable speech I have ever heard. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney says that my speech is discreditable, but that is because it hurts. It is very unfortunate for him, the Bonnie Prince Charlie of Australian politics, as he sees himself, to be cast in that role. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.59) —The topic of the matter of public importance this afternoon is the refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election. As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has so accurately put it, this Government wants to go into this election with a blank cheque from the electors of Australia. I am not sure the Australian electors have much of a choice. They either give a government or a party a blank cheque or they give it the opportunity to make a number of election promises which it inevitably breaks. So the electors are presented with a Hobson's choice, and that has been the pattern for many years. The regrettable thing is that the Government and the Opposition today, and for many years past, have lacked a tax plan. So to talk about a government refusing to disclose its taxation policies would give one the impression that, in the past, we have always had clear policies enunciated prior to an election by either or both parties. In fact they have both been afraid-in particular the party in power has always been afraid-to put forward a comprehensive tax policy, a detailed tax plan, particularly if it is going into the election with a prospect of winning it. It knows that it will be abused following the election if it does not keep to every word of that tax plan. It is relatively easy, particularly if a party is going into an election with very little prospect of winning it, to come up with dream-like promises of tax proposals because the party knows that they will not have to be implemented for the next three or four years. It needs to be recognised that the abuse of an opponent's plan or an opponent's tax record is no substitute for having a plan which is clearly enunciated and set before the electors. The electors need to know the alternative plans of the political parties or, preferably, electors would like to know the long term tax plan for Australia irrespective of which party or parties are in power. The tax plan changes very little irrespective of which party wins the election. We have found in this Parliament that the Liberal Party of Australia has quite willingly gone along with everything which has been put forward by the Labor Party Government and has voted 100 per cent for every proposal that has come forward in terms of its tax plans. The Liberal Party will undoubtedly do the same after the next election. It will again support wine taxes; it will support taxes on the necessities of life. It will do anything. It will even support a capital gains tax if the Government includes that in its next Budget. I ask anybody in the Opposition to deny that that is what it will do. It will allow capital gains taxes to be passed through this Senate if this Government introduces them, and we need to recognise that. I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing because it is an indication of the recognition by all parties in this Parliament that Australia needs a comprehensive, long term tax plan. It needs a strategy that people around Australia can recognise, can live with and can plan for. Senator Watson —Where is the Democrats' strategy? Senator JACK EVANS —I am glad the honourable senator asked that question. There are a number of tax questions to be addressed when looking at a tax strategy, and the Australian Democrats have done just that. Firstly, one needs to address the philosophic questions; whether we use a tax system for a redistribution of income; whether we need to provide under that tax system protection of industry segments; whether we believe there is a need through the tax system to support disadvantaged individuals; and whether we have a stronger philosophical base towards government expenditure or private enterprise expenditure. In the last several years-four or five years in particular-there has been very little difference between most Australian political parties. If one reads their policies one discovers that they are all of one mind, they all follow a similar philosophy and the debate comes down to minutia in this Parliament because there is nothing to distinguish between the political parties in Australia in terms of a long term tax plan. The one ingredient that may be missing is the courage to carry out that long term tax plan because it must inevitably include a lot of unattractive aspects as well as the more attractive facets. We would all like to pay a lower rate of personal income tax. It is interesting that governments rarely lower personal income taxes. The question of whether we have a flat or a progressive rate of taxation seems now to have been resolved. It is inevitable that we will have a progressive income tax system and only the flat-earthers are left favouring a flat rate of income tax. I think it is also uniformly agreed that we need gradually to move across towards a higher consumption tax ingredient whilst we are reducing our personal income tax ingredient. We must compensate in particular those on low and fixed incomes if we are to introduce a higher consumption tax, whether that be a retail tax, a wholesale tax, a turnover tax, a value added tax, or any other kind of consumption tax. We need to recognise that there are some people who would be disadvantaged, and they need to be looked after if consumption taxes are increased. We need to address the subject of capital gains taxes and windfall profits. The Australian Democrats do not see the necessity for introducing a capital gains tax. We believe that the existing legislation either is in place or can be put into place with very simple amendments to cover those who are currently evading their tax obligations. Payroll tax, which is a State tax, is an iniquitous tax. I think that everybody in this Parliament would agree that it needs to be eliminated as rapidly as possible. I think that all parties are willing to get rid of a retained profits tax, the Division 7 tax. It just requires the courage to do so when one is in government. I think resource rent taxes will become non- partisan taxes in their application. We will see that the party which was speaking vigorously against them this year will warmly embrace them should it be re-elected to government. We need to consider the potential in the Henry George League plan for land taxes, not necessarily as the be-all and end-all but as one of the ingredients which flow from that philosophy in taxation. The big queries will be on gift duties, estate duties and wealth taxes. They will never be introduced unless there is a non-partisan approach because electorally they are too damaging. We need to address the whole question of tax evasion and particularly we need to find better means of taxing those who are engaged in the cash economy. There are still hundreds of millions of dollars, if not thousands of millions, lost to any government through the evasion of taxes through the cash economy system of tax avoidance. We need to look as such things as tax splitting. In addition we need to consider whether spouse rebates should be replaced with family allowances to put the emphasis on child raising. We need to consider again the potential single purpose levies such as Medicare with other areas such as national superannuation and national workers compensation and make those taxes identifiable so that they cannot be gradually channelled into general revenue. We need to consider the potential there is in our tax system for income averaging and, at the bottom line, we need to be able to ensure that whatever tax system we have we do have a guaranteed minimum income for those who are unable to get into the Australian system. The Australian Democrats would envisage many of these reforms going through relatively easily if we were able to achieve consensus and move into a long term tax plan on a non-partisan line. For that reason-I speak constructively and positively for my remaining few minutes in this debate-this week I will be introducing a Bill into the Parliament which sets out a timetable for comprehensive tax reform. It will be non-partisan and it will give every political party the opportunity to be involved in the planning of and preparation for that system. It will take advantage of the reviews which have taken place over many, many years but which have, to a large degree, been ignored because they are too difficult for one political party on its own to introduce. We had the report of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, a comprehensive report second to none in this country's history, which is still lying on the shelf waiting for somebody to pick it up and really work it through . That was followed by the report of the Mathews Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation. We had the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System which again touched on a number of areas of importance to our taxation system and there have been many more reports. Those reports to which I have referred were handed down nearly 10 years ago. What have we been doing since then? We are now saying that the Economic Planning Advisory Council will consider again what is needed in the tax system. I do not deny that there is a part to be played by EPAC in reviewing our tax system, but let us at least ensure that when EPAC comes up with its recommendations, there is a timetable, a plan and a multi -party approach to what it will recommend. The Australian Democrats' plan for a tax reform timetable will not put just an Australian Democrats point of view on the philosophy or the policies of tax; it will enable all political parties to have input. Beyond that, it will encourage input from the people of Australia. It will be a comprehensive timetable and it will, I believe, point the way not just to this Government or the next government, not just for the next 10 years but for the next several decades, as to what our tax policies for this country should be. If we want stable government, if we want businesses to invest in this country because they see it as having a stable economic system with a comprehensive tax plan that does not bounce around from election to election and, within that three-year term of a Parliament, bounce around from a post-election Budget to a pre-election Budget, then let us work towards a comprehensive tax system which will achieve those objectives so that governments of Australia, Federal and State, the businesses and the taxpayers of Australia right across the board can recognise that here is a government, here is a nation with a tax system which is relatively easily understood, comprehensive, with vision and which looks into the long term future as well as the immediate future and enables people to plan for their tax. I accept that the reform of the tax system as a whole is not a simple task. It is not just the task of finding a simple, efficient and equitable system. Although it involves obvious considerations, such as the efficient allocation of resources within the economy, the redistribution of wealth, social welfare, employment, industry protection, Federal-State relations, international trade and the management of the economy, I believe that we can achieve that goal. There will be ramifications for the business community because of the effects upon the legal status and the liabilities and responsibilities of legal entities , such as corporations and trusts. There will be many considerations- philosophical, political and real world political. I believe that this Parliament has the capacity to do it. On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I offer our support to any government which is willing to work towards the achievement of such a goal-a comprehensive tax plan which will see Australia through any highs and lows in the economy, and any problems that we see in our immediate or long term future. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.14) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance-the refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election. The hip pocket nerve will be significant in electors' minds in determining the composition of the next Federal Parliament, but before debating this matter of public importance I want to refute certain claims made by Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. He stated that all parties are of the same mind and that there is nothing to distinguish the various political parties on the taxation issue. This is an attempt not only by the Australian Democrats, but also by the Labor Party to put forward grey areas indicating that there is no difference between the various parties. I indicate that there are sharp differences between us. Where are the Australian Democrats' specifics? They are strong on generalities and on motherhood statements. Most of us would have had to agree with the sentiments of Senator Jack Evans today. But to be a credible party they must come up with specifics. How will Senator Jack Evans's ideas affect the hip pocket nerve of the Australian electorate? It is becoming patently obvious that the Labor Government has failed to deliver a taxation policy because of the imminent election. I also suggest that this election was unnecessary. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has broken a previous election promise that the Government would run its full term. Now that there are difficulties on the horizon and there are problems, not only on the Government's own back bench but also in the future direction of the Australian economy, the Prime Minister feels it is necessary to call an early election. The Government has also used this excuse for its failure to deliver a taxation policy. What is the Government relying on? It says that its taxation policy is dependent on the outcome of a comprehensive review to be finalised early next year. This raises vital questions about the Government's economic competence. The Australian voters are owed a policy, or at least an outline. The Liberal Party is announcing its policy next week. In doing so, it shows an openness that the Australian Labor Party appears reluctant to follow. Now it appears today that the Australian Democrats are also reluctant to follow that course. I think that the Australian electors are entitled to have put before them the views of the three major parties on this very important issue. This policy omission on the part of the Government has fuelled widespread speculation about future direction of taxation in Australia. This is very much to be regretted. However, there are some realistic predictions that can be made, using economic rationale. There is every indication now that new taxes will be an economic necessity, should the Hawke Labor Government be re-elected in December. Indeed, today we have heard John Stone who has an unequalled insight into this Government's economic philosophy and intent, combined with an intimate knowledge of the Australian economy, supporting the view that there will be a bevy of new taxes raised at the masthead after the next election. Why? John Stone said it would be because 'not much more can be squeezed out of the existing ones.' Revenue derived from personal income taxes is being rapidly exhausted, as we all know. Also, it is common knowledge that government accounts are between 60 and 90 days overdue. The Government has become tardy in the payment of its accounts. We not only have a big deficit and a high spending Government; we also have the highest taxing Government on record. We now find that the Government is tardy in the payment of its accounts. So what alternative will the Government have other than to impose new taxes? Let us look at some statistics comparing the Fraser Government with the Hawke Labor Government. Average annual growth rate in terms of outlays was 2.2 per cent for the Fraser Government over the course of its seven Budgets. For the Hawke Government it was 6.9 per cent in two annual Budgets. That means the Hawke Government's percentage outlay was three times higher. If we look at personal income tax, we find that the average annual growth rate under the Fraser Government was 3.7 per cent; under the Hawke Government it was 7.6 per cent. It is a high spending, high revenue raising Government, raising that revenue from personal taxation, from the very people that it claims to protect. Real Budget receipts under the Fraser Government were 3.4 per cent compared with 6.1 per cent under the Hawke Government. All these figures indicate one thing: The Government is in trouble. It is going to an early election without a tax policy. Let us look at some of the figures. The financial year 1983-84 witnessed remarkable revenue growth, principally due to extraordinary circumstances, a repetition of which is highly unlikely. Indeed , much of this is reflected in the substantial bounce back in farm incomes due to the ending of the drought in 1983. We are having a fudge of comparison. We are comparing the performance of the Fraser Government during the worst drought that we have faced and one of the worst international recessions, and the bouncing back with the improvement in the international situation and the benefits that Australia got from that, and the bounce back as a result of the increase in farm incomes due to the ending of the drought. The Government is enjoying a very unfair comparison. It is not comparing its performance with the early years of the Fraser Government, when we had some of the best figures in comparison with the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Let us look, however, at what economic forecasters are saying about the future and at the reasons for this early election. Let us look at the reasons why this Government has put forward no taxation policy before it goes to the electors in December. Syntec, the economic forecasting group, has confirmed and reported that the present upswing in the business cycle in the Australian economy, though strong, is essentially short term and superficial. Therefore, it would be economically unwise to rely on revenue of this nature to contribute further towards a reduction in the Budget deficit. Thus, the long term effect of the tax cuts, as we shall find, is that the structural component of the Budget deficit will have been allowed to rise during a period of growth, and this is economic negligence. The Government has allowed political pragmatism to prevail, and this almost miraculous opportunity of effectively and substantially reducing the Budget deficit was subordinate to income tax cuts, which are a compulsory element of the prices and incomes accord. Effectively, this accord has lost the Government a potential tax revenue of $1.3 billion for 1984-85, and the loss for 1985-86 is estimated at $2 billion. So the benefits were financed by imposing higher marginal rates on an increasingly large proportion of taxpayers. The main feature of the last Budget's tax cuts is that although they reduced the tax bill faced by all people at all income levels, they actually increased the marginal tax rates faced by all people earning between $28,000 and $35,789 per year. For those earning between $28,000 and $35,000 per year the marginal rate has increased from 47 per cent to 49 per cent, while for those earning between $35,000 and $35,789 it has increased from 47 per cent to 61 per cent. That is a very significant increase in marginal tax rates; that is the extra tax on every extra dollar earned. The Treasury estimate of a 2.5 per cent growth in consumer spending is optimistic, if not questionable. The prospect that unemployment will decline only very slowly, combined with the fact that pay increases will not come until April next year, are not conditions on which a great deal of consumer confidence will be built. If the Government does not increase taxes, what will it do? Will it reduce the deficit? It has indicated that there will be further decreases in the deficit. So, what are the options? Reductions in public spending programs are unlikely with a Federal Labor Government. If anything, if the Government is returned at the next election, it will increase its range of programs to satisfy the back bench, so we shall see no reduction in public spending programs. What will happen? We return time and again to the logic that there must be an increase in tax rates on ordinary individuals, who are heavily taxed now-we have some of the highest taxed people in the world-or that new taxes will be introduced. It is not surprising that we find great concern on the part of all and sundry about some of the new tax rates. How can the Government reduce public spending programs? In only 40 per cent of government sector outlays are there possibilities for real term reductions-and at best only marginal reductions, due to the level and nature of the expenditure . Once a government is locked into social service and defence programs, it cannot opt out of them easily, so there is very little opportunity for reductions. Fixed or indexed proportions of the other 55 per cent preclude expenditure reduction. Furthermore, public debt servicing costs will escalate dramatically. With the increasing proportion of the Budget that is required to finance public sector debt, this is a matter of major concern. We now rank amongst the most highly indebted individuals in the world. It is no wonder that there is concern about business confidence. What can we anticipate? We can anticipate a capital gains tax, which the Prime Minister has failed to rule out. We can anticipate a wealth tax, the reintroduction of estate duties, or the retention of wholesale sales taxes combined with a broadly-based indirect tax. So again, the Australian people are facing a dilemma in regard to increased taxation if the Labor Government is returned at the next election. We have already seen attacks on people's ability to save. One of the first things that the present Government did was to attack lump sum superannuation payments. There is also the assets test. It is not surprising that farmers approaching retirement are most concerned about the full implications of the assets test. Also, the relative levels of the disposable incomes of age, invalid and widowed pensioners and unemployment and supporting parent beneficiaries have declined by 10 per cent in comparison with the poverty line over the last 18 months. These are the very people whom the Hawke Government is supposed to assist. Overall, not only have the disadvantaged suffered a decline in living standards but also a further decline is imminent. Taxation is supposedly the means by which society finances community needs; hence it is a social matter. But one of the problems is the flourishing of the black market economy, to the detriment of low income and middle income earners, which is highly inequitable. The black market economy is expected to turn over $ 3,500m per annum. It has potential as a significant tax collection area, but we have had very little movement from the Government in this matter. The marginal tax rates faced by workers at given proportions of average weekly earnings have increased dramatically under this Government. The incentive not to declare income or to earn non-taxable income is rising all the time. The share of declared income in the higher tax brackets has fallen, despite the actions of the previous Government. The Labor Government tends to put forward the furphy that the Fraser Government was soft on bottom of the harbour tax avoidance. The latest report of the Commissioner of Taxation puts that to rest. The Fraser Government took the necessary action to finish bottom of the harbour schemes. What is the Government asking for? It is asking for a blank cheque. It has produced an election Budget. After the coming election, we shall find that there will be a massive boost in taxation to satisfy socialist objectives. I support the matter of public importance. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.30) —Over the last 18 months I had not seen anything that the Opposition had done that impressed me. That changed today when I looked at the topic of this matter of public importance. It indeed made an impression because we would all have to be impressed with the breathtaking gall and the sheer hide of this Opposition in raising anything to do with tax policy, given its sad and sorry record over those seven miserable years of the Fraser-Howard regime. Senator Watson asked: What does this Government want the people to do? It is not a matter of asking people to give the Government a blank cheque. Rather it is the case that this Government is asking the people of Australia to compare its record over the last two Budgets with the efforts of the Opposition in its long reign from 1975 to 1982, the reign which did so much damage to our economy. We must first compare the rhetoric of the Fraser regime with its actual record. I wish to remind honourable senators opposite of some of that rhetoric. Mr Malcolm Fraser, in his 1975 election campaign speech, said: We will encourage people's initiative and enterprise, not batter them into the ground with punishing taxes. We will reduce the tax burden. Also in the 1975 election campaign he said: The Government will bring taxes down further-not increase them. Surprisingly enough-some would say 'staggeringly enough'-in the 1977 election campaign speech, he said: We have ended the big tax rip-off. We have reduced taxes, revived incentive and restored fair reward for achievement. That is fine rhetoric indeed. Let us look at just some of the record. In those seven years of Fraser-Howard Budgets they took a massive $203 billion from the pockets of Australian taxpayers. They took more in seven years than had been collected by way of total tax collections in the previous 75 years of Federation . Total tax collections rose by 150 per cent in those seven years under Fraser- from $16.8 billion in 1975-76 to $41.8 billion in 1982-83. But when one looks at the real record of the Opposition when it occupied the treasury bench, one first has to look at tax cuts and tax indexation, which are the two areas about which we had so much trumpeting and some action. Like so many actions of the Fraser- Howard regime they were actions that always lacked direction. Over the period the ship in which the Australian people were passengers had a rough ride indeed, as we rocked from side to side, never knowing who was in charge and never knowing where we were heading. Looking at the tax cuts is the first appropriate way in which to look at the Opposition's record. Back in 1977 we were generously given tax cuts, and the Australian people dutifully applauded. But they did not have them for very long because they were taken away-in a 1978 mini-Budget. A temporary-I stress the word 'temporary'-surcharge of 1 1/2 per cent was placed upon personal taxation. Sadly enough, only a year later, in 1979, that temporary surcharge became permanent. As the Australian Labor Party had been predicting, the Liberals broke yet another promise. In the field of tax indexation their performance was even worse; they were even more directionless, contradictory and dishonest. On 27 November 1975, Malcolm Fraser said: We will fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years. He also said: The reforms will mean that for the first time, wage and salary increases due solely to inflation will not lead to heavier taxes. Again, that is fine rhetoric; something in which we could all find comfort. But of course, yet again, the record did not live up to the rhetoric. Indexation was introduced in 1977. However, in the 1979 Budget it was suspended. Again, that was no shock to the Labor Party; we had predicted it. But in 1980 with another election coming, when things were starting to go wrong, when the ship had really lost direction, on 6 March of that year tax indexation was announced yet again and, in fact, half indexation was introduced in 1981. That was a second try. But then in 1982-I do not know the reason; I have no doubt that neither does Malcolm Fraser nor John Howard-it was abandoned again. Once again, the hopes and the aspirations of the Australian people which had been raised by all this fine rhetoric were dashed by the record. If we go through the period of 1980 and on towards the death of the Fraser Government in March 1983, when its policies were failing on all fronts and when desperation was at its highest, we see that it still had the hide to postulate about reductions in taxation. When things were looking grim in April 1981 Malcolm Fraser said: For our part we will be looking for every opportunity to cut taxes during the term of this Parliament. Again, that might have been fine rhetoric but it was not matched by the record. Again in 1981 Malcolm Fraser said: Our objective is the lowest possible taxation for Australians by restraint on public expenditure. I do not think there is an Australian now who is not fully aware of that massive Budget blowout, that $9.6 billion projected deficit, that was created by the Fraser Government. The Fraser Government had lost all control over expenditure having, of course, long before that, lost control over revenue. The burden increasingly fell on pay as you earn taxpayers-from 14.7 per cent of total tax at the beginning of its reign to 45.4 per cent of total tax at the end. Interestingly enough, only those taxpayers earning $60,000 a year or more had not had the same rate of increase of personal taxation as the rest of the community. Once again it proved to be a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. If we contrast that horrible, dreadful record with the record of the Hawke Government in the two Budgets that it has had the opportunity to formulate for Australia we see a very different record indeed. The last Budget provided personal income tax cuts which are, of course, substantial for those on low and middle incomes. People who earn between $12,500 and $28,000 a year will be $7.60 a week better off. For those earning less than $12,500 a year, that is, those who are on the tax threshold of $4,600-odd up to $12,500, the reduction is, in fact, a massive 17 per cent. Once again, the Hawke Government has lived up to the high expectations that all of us had for it. An important feature of the new tax scale, that is, the tax scale that will come into effect on 1 November 1984, is that it is more progressive. Those at the lower end of the scale get far more in terms of tax cuts than those at the higher end. That represents a dramatic departure from the Fraser-Howard days. The $7.60 a week applies to virtually all low and middle income full time workers. It is a larger tax cut-I think this has to be underlined-than that which those workers could have received under tax indexation arrangements. Under indexation arrangements workers earning up to $ 374 a week could have expected a tax cut of $2.30. Of course, if one looks at what they have received one will see that it is more than three times greater under the Hawke-Keating tax cuts. The total cost of the tax cut in this Budget is $2.1 billion. Again, that is very significantly more than could have been expected under the tax indexation arrangements. These meaningful tax cuts were achieved without increasing the Budget deficit. When we ask the people to compare the record of Fraser and John Howard with the record of the Hawke Government, the deficit tells the story. We have managed to reduce it by over 30 per cent in two years-from $9.6 billion down to $6.7 billion. That, I suggest, is one of our great achievements. What is more, when we are re-elected on 1 December-I noted Senator Watson's little slip of the tongue when he said 'when, if the Government is re-elected'; I have no doubt about the 'when'; he was right the first time; he did not need to correct himself-that Budget deficit will be brought down even further. This Government has shown its commitment to using the taxation system to do just that. If one looks at the prescribed payments system as it applies to the building and construction industry, one will see that it found in the first year 55,000 more taxpayers, netting already an extra $50m for this year. We have tried and tried again to do something about tax avoidance. We have made three attempts to implement effective tax avoidance measures but, as always, the Liberal and National parties, rallying to their constituency, have obstructed the Government in getting the legislation through the Senate. What else could we expect given their shocking record of doing anything at all about taxation avoidance during John Howard's reign as Treasurer? We can contrast their position on taxation with that of the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke Government. The main elements of the Government's approach to tax reform are simple, yet I think they stress equity and the common sense and competence that has been the hallmark we have shown since March of 1983. As my Leader, Senator John Button, said earlier, we believe that there is scope for a review of the taxation system, scope for making it fairer and more equitable. In conducting that review we believe it is of fundamental importance that community groups be consulted. Again, this is far different from the sad record of those dark days under Fraser. Groups such as the Economic Planning Advisory Council will be consulted during that review to make sure that whatever decisions the Government comes up with in the end have been thoroughly discussed in the community. Our reforms of the tax system-this is the bottom line-cannot and will not mean an increase in the overall tax burden. That burden will be reduced. It seems to have been completely lost on honourable senators opposite that we will be able to increase revenues simply because we have got Australia working again. The country is moving. We have come out of the recession and next year, 1985, far from presenting problems, as some speakers on the other side have tried to suggest, will in fact be the best economic year Australia has experienced since the 1960s. Further, we have stated that the review will be comprehensive and that we will not speculate on any option now. I noted a statement made only a few weeks ago by John Howard at the Press Club, when he also agreed that the Opposition would not rule out the introduction of a capital gains tax. Much has been made of the need for the early introduction of a capital gains tax. In the last few weeks we have heard from John Howard again that the Government will be racing off to introduce a mini-Budget early in the new year. It has to be stated clearly, as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) stated in the House of Representatives last week, that such a proposal is just not on. There is no need for a mini- Budget. There is no need to vary our Budget. It is working. It has public acceptance. It has runs on the board. It is something of which we are justifiably proud. It is interesting to note that the members of the Liberal and National parties barely challenged any revenue and expenditure estimates when the Budget was brought down last August. They know they are correct. This scaremongering about mini-Budgets is just about all they have left. If a miracle were to happen and the Liberal and National parties were to win the election all we would see would be the destruction of Medicare; the termination of job programs that have given so many young people some hope and some rest from the dole; the introduction of new taxes in a doctrinaire attempt to cut the deficit; and, what is worse, the destruction of the prices and incomes accord, the one real hope for the future of this nation to keep down our inflation level. At the election on 1 December I know the Australian people will look at the record of the Liberals and the Nationals, they will look at the record of the Hawke Government, and they will return the Hawke Government with the biggest majority since Federation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.43) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance brought forward by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle in the following terms: The refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election. We face the quite extraordinary situation that the Government is going into the election on the basis that it has no intention of telling the Australian people what it proposes to do about taxation. Indeed, it is now making a virtue of the fact-we heard it paraded by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) today-that it has absolutely no preconceived ideas at all about the shape the tax system should assume. That statement was made in this place today by Senator Button in what was certainly the least honest speech I have heard him make in this place. It was said last Thursday by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who used almost exactly the same words when promising a review of the taxation system. He said: The review will be comprehensive and it is pointless to speculate on any particular tax options because the Government has absolutely no preconceived views on the outcome. What the Government is seeking is a total, open blank cheque and the people of Australia need to realise that that blank cheque will be drawn on their account and not on the account of this Government. On Sunday the Prime Minister, speaking on 60 Minutes, blatantly said: 'I can tell you nothing about the policies of this Government with respect to taxation. If we are returned we have no preconceptions. We await an inquiry'. That is an extraordinary stance for the Government to take. It is a stance which, I suppose, in part explains its rush to an early election, an election which Mr Hawke promised would not occur but which is to occur. It is occurring before this Government has to disclose its hand on what it intends to do about taxation. We have just heard a speech from Senator Richardson, who is a pretty handy numbers man and I would have thought might have been able to give us some arithmetic instead of the rhetoric he trotted forth. He gave us an appeal not to indulge in rhetoric. He said: 'Let us look at the hard facts'. He set about attacking the Fraser Government's record in taxation. Let us look at some hard facts and let us look at them at the broad level as it affects the whole Australian community and as it affects the individual taxpayer. In the area of personal income tax the Fraser Government raised an additional 3.7 per cent per annum from the Australian taxpayers. Tax did go up under Mr Fraser. It went up because government expenditure continued to rise at an average rate of a little over 2 per cent. So, yes, Mr Fraser did collect more in income taxes. It was a continuing difficulty for his Government that it could not reduce income tax in the way it had hoped. We now find that the Hawke Government in two Budgets has increased personal income tax by 7.6 per cent-something over twice the rate of the increases under Mr Fraser. That is not difficult to understand. Mr Hawke has had to increase income tax in that way for the simple reason-again I refer to cold hard facts- that Government expenditure under Mr Hawke has increased by nearly 7 per cent in two Budgets. So the fact of the matter is that personal income tax collections under Mr Hawke have risen by 7.6 per cent a year in real terms. Senator Robert Ray —Why do you not talk in per person terms? Senator CHANEY —We have just had an appeal from Senator Robert Ray, who makes speeches about documents he has not read. That is his record in this place. Senator Robert Ray asked me to talk in per person terms. That is exactly what I want to do. I said that I would look at the matter from the point of view of individual taxpayers. This Government is trumpeting in this election campaign that it has delivered tax cuts, and Senator Richardson has just said that. Let us look at that statement from the point of view of pay as you earn taxpayers. Let us look at it from the point of view of the figures in the Government's Budget Papers. We find that the first Hawke Budget took a little over $78 a week on average from each pay as you earn taxpayer. That was the figure in the first Budget under Mr Hawke. Under Mr Hawke's second Budget, pay as you earn taxpayers will pay on average little over $87 a week. So in this Budget the amount to be taken from pay as you earn taxpayers has not gone down; it has gone up from a little over $78 a week to a little over $87 a week. The tax cuts have been described by so many commentators as non-tax cuts, as fraudulent, as just a confidence trick, and that is indeed what they are. We have been told by plenty of independent commentators that over one million Australians will move up into higher tax brackets under this new system which has been introduced by Mr Hawke. The fact is that income tax collections are rising by a very significant amount under this Budget. Whether one looks at the matter from the point of view of what will be paid by pay as you earn taxpayers or by provisional taxpayers, the fact is that the Labor Government is a high taxing government. A series of arguments was put forward by Senator Button, who appeared to be filling in for Senator Walsh because he adopted many of his tactics. Senator Button is normally very careful in the speeches he makes in this place. Certainly, when speaking on unemployment he has been very careful not to overstate the improvements that have occurred and he has been very careful to express caution about what is happening in the employment situation. He seemed to throw caution to the wind in this debate when he quite cheerfully said that the Government had no preconceived ideas about where the taxation system should go under a future Labor Government. He made a number of statements which I believe cannot be allowed to pass without challenge. For example, he repeated the old Labor farrago that there was a $9.6 billion deficit under Mr Fraser. I noted that Senator Richardson corrected himself and talked about the projected deficit. The fact is that the highest deficit under Mr Fraser was $4.4 billion, not $9.6 billion. There was an estimate for the last financial year, the first year of the Labor Government, of a deficit of $9.6 billion. That figure was never valid; it was never accurate. When the present Government was asked to release the same forward projection this year it refused on the grounds that the figure was not accurate; it was not reliable. This Government has indulged in running a canard which, I agree, has very wide currency in the community. I say only that it is one of the great lies of Australian politics. The fact is that under Mr Fraser the highest deficit was $4 .4 billion. It was expected that that deficit would rise because of the ongoing costs running from the last Fraser Budget, but that projected deficit was always just an estimate. It took no account of the economic improvement which occurred. It is a fictitious figure. More seriously, Senator Button claimed that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had circulated a paper that advocated a flat rate of tax. Senator Button made a rather pious speech which decried the fact that we do not have a sensible debate about taxation in this country, saying that it is a pity that the Opposition is not putting forward propositions for debate. In fact, Mr Howard referred to a paper which was commissioned by the Parliamentary Library. At the front of that paper it is stated: This is a paper commissioned by the Parliamentary Library. The research is part of a project sponsored jointly by the Centre of Policy Studies and the Australian Tax Research Foundation on the implications of a change in the tax mix towards indirect tax. It was a cheap political stunt by the Leader of the Government to refer to the document in the way in which he did. It is a document commissioned by the Library of this Parliament which raises a whole list of serious taxation issues. It flies in the face of the whole approach that was advocated by Senator Button that he should have dealt with it in the way in which he did. Let us return to this debate. The context of the debate is that we have just had an easy Budget put down by this Government. We have just had cosmetic tax cuts. We have all this because an early election has been called for 1 December, an election which the Prime Minister promised would not occur. We have high and rising taxes. I have already referred to the fact that this is an easy Budget. Let me very quickly explain what I mean. Because of the breaking of the drought and because there has been a degree of economic recovery this Government got a lot of additional revenue, $9 billion. That was one-off. Every commentator says that was a surge in revenue which will not recur. It was an opportunity for this Government to put the Budget into better shape and to ease the pressures for the future. Instead, the Government reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion and used the bulk of that additional revenue to finance additional expenditure. The Government is now locked into an expenditure pattern which it will find very hard to break. The reality is that as this Government is locked into a high expenditure pattern it is therefore locked into a high taxation pattern. There is no escaping that reality. The tax policy which we will announce next week, so that we go to the Australian people not without any preconceived ideas but with a policy that they can understand and vote upon, will be predicated on the fact that this Government has left the Australian people in a situation in which the expenditure of government is such that tax reduction is a matter of enormous difficulty. This Government picked up a huge amount of additional revenue. It has spent that revenue in a way which will require the same additional expenditure next year. There is no escaping high taxation next year. We have been saying that for some time. It has been said by commentators for some time. It was said again in a way that attracted a great deal of publicity by the retired Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, over the weekend. Let me quote just a small part of what Mr Stone had to say because it tells why we are concerned about the fact that the Government will have to pursue new avenues of taxation revenue. Mr Stone, who I think is in a position to know, said: In truth there is not much more revenue juice to be had in the personal income tax lemon, yielding as it is estimated to do this year no less than 53 per cent of the total revenues accruing to the coffers of the Commonwealth. In effect that leaves only the introduction of such new taxes as a capital gains tax or possibly a wealth tax, the reintroduction of estate duties, which must be regarded as virtually certain, or the introduction of a truly broadly based indirect tax in substitution for, or in addition to, the present wholesale sales tax. How can the business community, nay how can the community more generally, be expected to go about its business and personal affairs with such an absolute thundercloud of taxation policy uncertainty hanging over it? Yet does anyone expect the Government in its forthcoming policy speech to come clean on this subject in that spirit of integrity to which it so assiduously lays claim? Not a bit of it. We face the reality that there is a continuance of high expenditure by this Government which it cannot escape. There is, therefore, a requirement for taxation revenues which I do not believe this Government will be able to raise without additional new revenues. Only today Dr Neville Norman on radio has made the point that the Government will need to find very many billions of dollars more in revenue. That precludes any question of tax relief and, indeed, will require additional taxation. I can understand that people find it very difficult to know which side of politics to believe in debates in which figures are thrown backwards and forwards. Therefore, I conclude my speech by pointing out that independent observers who have been very friendly to many of the policy developments of this Government have made the point that the Government is heading for very great difficulties. Syntec is one such observer, a journal that has often been quoted in this place and which has often said very approving things about the Hawke Government. In its September and October issues we find the clearest possible statements that it believes that there will have to be some form of autumn package of fiscal measures; in other words, tax changes in the autumn session of Parliament early next year which will do something to get over the structural component of the deficit in the Federal Budget. The reality is that this Government has painted itself into an expenditure and taxation corner. It is now endeavouring to hoodwink the Australian people by saying quite simply: 'Trust us. Do not worry about the fact that we have no preconceived notions about taxation. Ignore the fact that Minister Jones has said that we will have to do things after this election that we would not dare do before the election. Ignore the fact that Minister Button has said that he believes we should impose new taxes on people's assets. Ignore the fact that the Prime Minister himself, two years ago, was advocating the same case. Ignore the fact that there are so many straws in the wind. Ignore the fact that reality demands new and higher taxation. Trust us'. I say only that the Australian people need to think very carefully about that proposition. The reality is that this Government is dreaming up new ways to tax them. There is no escape from that reality. That matter can be met only if we get a government which is more resolute about controlling government expenditure, which is prepared to take the sorts of decisions which will give Australia a sensible set of national accounts and not a government which is prepared to gamble with the future of Australia for short term political gains and because it intends to have an early election in December. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.58) —I rise to oppose the matter of public importance submitted by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. It reads: The refusal of the Government to disclose its taxation policies before the election. I reply first to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle by hitting head on her claim that the present Government is a high tax government. We need only look at the figures available on gross pay as you earn income taxation collections as a percentage of gross domestic product to be able to nail that lie very firmly. I cite those figures for the Senate. For 1982-83, which was the last financial year of the Fraser-Howard Administration, gross pay as you earn income taxes were 12.7 per cent of gross domestic product. This financial year, the second financial year of administration by the Hawke Labor Government, gross pay as you earn taxation will be only 11.9 per cent of gross domestic product. There has been a very clear reduction in that proportion, which is contradictory evidence to the claim made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and others today that this Government is a high taxation government. We need only to go back to the period in 1977 and 1978 referred to earlier by Senator Richardson when he talked about the election fought on a fistful of dollars. At that time the Fraser Government introduced a new taxation system, the bottom rate of which was 30c in the dollar . Previously there had been two tax rates below 30c in the dollar. All the Fraser Government could manage was a tax rate of 30c in the dollar at the very bottom of the tax structure. Of course, it was Mr Howard who in the two Budgets in 1981 and 1982 presided over the largest ever rise in sales tax in this country. The compound increase in collections from sales tax as a result of the extension of the tax base and the higher rates imposed in those two Budgets was 66 per cent-a very large increase indeed in that tax on sales of goods and services. One of the distinguishing features of the Budget we brought down in August is the introduction of the 25c in the dollar taxation rate. As I pointed out, that will be lower than the rates applying under the Fraser-Howard Government. In fact it is the lowest rate for six or seven years. The 25c in the dollar tax rate will apply on incomes up to $12,500 and will be of great benefit to people on low and middle incomes. Overall the effect of that tax cut will be $7.60 a week on incomes up to $28,000. One of the key features of the introduction of the 25c in the dollar tax rate is that many Australians will now move into a lower taxation bracket. In fact figures made available to me suggest that two and a quarter million Australian taxpayers will pay tax now at the 25c in the dollar tax rate. Previously they would have paid tax at higher rates. Of course, taxpayers on incomes above $12,500 will benefit also from the introduction of that rate because that rate applies to the first $12,500 of all incomes. This afternoon Senator Chaney pulled some amazing figures out of the air. One that I tried to scribble down in haste was a claim that there had somehow been a 7 per cent rise in taxation under this Government. Senator Chaney —That is quite right; income tax. Senator MAGUIRE —In income tax. But Senator Chaney omitted to tell the Senate and the people of Australia that he was comparing two different periods in Australian history-one with an economy which was in decline and the other with an economy with sharp growth. He ignored the fact that whatever taxation figures he was talking about were based on a growing economy with more and more people employed in both the public and private sectors of the economy. Senator Chaney —What about the per head figure? Senator MAGUIRE —I will get to that in a moment. As to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's claim about people moving into higher tax brackets-I think she claimed that an extra one million people have moved into the 46c in the dollar tax bracket-she should give us the whole story. Why did she not tell us and the people of Australia about the people who have moved into the lower tax brackets? It is all very well to make claims about what people are paying at the margin, that is, on the last dollars of their income, but to ignore the fact of what they are paying on the total of their income. It is a specious argument to make claims in isolation about people moving into higher tax brackets. As a result of this Budget, we will have a distinguishing feature in Australian taxation with the introduction of a lower tax bracket and therefore many Australians moving into lower tax brackets. It may be true that one million extra taxpayers will move into the 46c in the dollar tax bracket, but the figures made available to me suggest that more than two and a quarter million people will move down from the 30c in the dollar rate to the 25c in the dollar rate. The inevitable effect of that, for Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle's edification-I am surprised that after her years in the Finance Ministry she would make those sorts of claims-is that the average tax rate has been reduced for many taxpayers. More people are going into lower tax brackets than are moving up into higher brackets. It is the average tax rate that counts-not the marginal tax rate which applies only to the very last dollars that people earn and not to the total amount earned. They are a couple of the nonsensical claims which have been made this afternoon and which deserve no further debate. This Government has made its taxation policies clear by its actions. It has in fact brought in a more progressive income tax system. It has increased the number of tax brackets. It has introduced new taxation rebates which will mean that most people who receive unemployment and sickness benefits will no longer pay tax, resulting in big changes in their situation. The one per cent Medicare levy has been relaxed. In the last 12 months we have heard honourable senators opposite saying, both in this place and around the country, that the Medicare levy would be increased. In fact not only has the levy not been increased but also it has been relaxed for many thousands of Australians. The estimates supplied to me suggest that over 150,000 Australians will no longer pay the Medicare levy as a result of the measures introduced this year. So rather than there being an increase in the levy for many thousands of Australians, there has been a reduction in the levy. The taxation changes which have been introduced in this Budget have been very significant, involving over $2,000m in a full financial year and representing a 17 per cent reduction for those on the very bottom of the income scale. This is in fact a very large reduction in the taxation burden as a result of one change in the Budget. Of course, the tax cuts are very genuine tax cuts and have been accepted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is an organisation which will not be fooled by phoney figures. It has accepted these tax cuts as real and genuine. In fact the taxation reductions are provided as part of the prices and incomes accord. They are designed to strengthen further the prices and incomes accord. They increase the disposable income of Australian workers by tax cuts rather than by their receiving money from wage rises. The total effect of the tax cuts is to give the equivalent of a 4 per cent money wage rise. They are some of the aspects of our record on taxation. In the last month some claims have been made that more should have been done to increase the taxation threshold, the level below which people are not liable for income tax. I simply refer to the fact that the new 25c in the dollar tax rate will mean that a number of taxation rebates will go further in freeing Australian taxpayers from taxation. I simply instance the dependent spouse rebate which, as a result of the introduction of the 25c in the dollar tax rate, will now free from taxation liability people receiving up to $8,700 a year. Previously that rebate freed people from a taxation liability only if their income was below $8,000 a year; so it is a very large increase indeed. Similarly the new rebates for unemployment and sickness beneficiaries introduced in this Budget will free many more Australians from a taxation liability. This afternoon I heard Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle refer to a figure of 23 per cent which she claimed was the rise in taxation collections in this year's Budget. It has to be said that that figure certainly does not apply to pay as you earn taxation figures. In fact the rise in gross collections from pay as you earn taxation will be 10.7 per cent a year. If there is an increase in revenue of the order of 23 per cent it seems to me that in the main it reflects three major things. The first is the recovery in the farm sector in Australia which has led to higher farm incomes. We have heard over the last 12 months the Opposition claiming that the Government's policies have had very little to do with economic recovery in this country; that it has all been due to the rain coming down in the southern parts of Australia. But the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If it makes those sorts of claims it should be able to admit that a more buoyant farm sector will produce more revenue for whichever government is in power. Also, the rise in government revenue has been the result of the stimulation of the economy by this Government. We have seen the end of the recession, a rise in business incomes, a rise in business surpluses and, consequently, a rise in the revenue flow to government coffers. That is not to say that businesses or farms are in a worse position. They have higher revenues from which they are paying the taxation. I refer also to the prescribed payments system. The Budget Papers make it very clear that in relation to any 23 per cent figure for the rise in taxation collections, the introduction of the prescribed payments system, the deductions at source for payments for work, has had a large and significant effect on changes in taxation collections in this Budget. Senator Richardson referred to applications for 55,000 new taxation file numbers. I am pleased to say that the Commissioner of Taxation has taken the matter further. He has examined those 55, 000 applications for new taxation file numbers and has looked at 11,000 of them in great detail. He found that 71 per cent of that 11,000 had never lodged a tax return. That is where the revenue is coming from. It is not coming from the ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers of this country, from the ordinary honest workers earning their wages and salaries. The revenue is coming from the people who have never paid tax before. I think it is high time these people did pay tax . This financial year it is estimated in the Budget that collections from the prescribed payments system will rise to $350m compared with $250m last year. They are some of the elements of taxation growth in the Budget. If we are going to have lawyers talking about economic matters I think we are in dire straits. The fact is that when one looks at the rise in wages and salaries budgeted this financial year of around 7 per cent and a rise in employment of around 3 per cent, the summation of those two is very similar indeed to the projected rise in gross pay as you earn receipts in the Budget. Senator Chaney —Not true. Senator MAGUIRE —I refer Senator Chaney to Budget Paper No. 1 which he may like to read later this afternoon. He will find those figures in there. I think that indicates fairly clearly that there will be no rise in the average tax rate paid by Australians. In the debate this afternoon we heard talk about people being affected by inflation by being pushed into higher taxation brackets. I have already dealt with the claim made by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on that matter. I simply refer to the fact that under the changes in the tax brackets to take account of inflation which existed under the Fraser Government-I suppose I should say half indexation, because that is generally what prevailed-the best that a person on average weekly earnings could have got from the policies of the Fraser Government being applied in the present circumstances would have been a $ 2.30 a week tax cut. That is the sort of figure we are looking at. I simply draw to the attention of honourable senators the $7.60 a week tax cut for most Australian taxpayers in this year's Budget. The best the Liberal policies could have given those people was some $2.30 a week. That is a tremendous difference. I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.14) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This is the third report of the Independent Air Fares Committee. The report refers to a general improvement in the Australian economy which has been reflected in a rise in passenger numbers on Australia's domestic air routes. As its name suggests, the Committee determines air fares in Australia, it has done so since 1981. During the financial year 1983-84 the report states that there were three rises in domestic air fares for the major airlines. There was a 1.3 per cent rise in July last year, followed by a 6 per cent rise in October and a 2 per cent lift in fares in April this year. The total air fare increase awarded for travel on trunk routes was 9.8 per cent for the financial year just ended. It is a matter of some note that that was the lowest rise in air fares in Australia since the financial year 1977-78. However, it should be noted that the rise in fares is still well above the overall inflation rate in the community. The 9.8 per cent lift in economy air fares is well ahead of the 6.5 per cent rise in the consumer price index in the 12 months to June. I think a very clear conclusion that can be reached is that air travel is still becoming a relatively expensive item in Australia. It is a commodity growing in cost compared with other commodities available in the Australian community. I think it is a matter of some regret that air travel is such an expensive item in Australia. As we live in a large continent I think our interest should be in cheaper air travel to reduce isolation and enable people to move from the far- flung parts of Australia more quickly. Unfortunately we do not have cheap air travel in this country. Certainly in the last financial year a range of discount fares was introduced but these fares are still subject to a number of restrictions which reduce their availability and accessibility. There is no doubt that the level of air fares has had a major influence on volume of travel. I simply refer to the report tabled last week by the Department of Aviation entitled 'Outlook for the Aviation Industry' which predicts only a 2 per cent growth in Australian air traffic in the current financial year 1984-85. Of course, that figure of 2 per cent is a far cry from the levels of growth we saw in the late 1970s of 7 per cent or 8 per cent per annum, with very rapid rises in air travel. I think it is fair to say that in recent years the Australian aviation industry-the domestic trunk passenger industry-has contracted relative to the national economy. It is a smaller element now within the national economy due to a smaller growth of the air transport sector. It is of some interest that passenger numbers carried in the last financial year, 1983-84 were only marginally above those for the year 1977- 78. As I have noted, the Independent Air Fares Committee reported a 9.8 per cent lift in economy fares during the last financial year. It is interesting to read that figure in conjunction with the figures published by the Department of Aviation which suggest that the real fare increases-that is, the increases above the inflation rate in the last financial year-were the smallest on the short- haul routes and highest on the medium and longer haul routes. It has been reported that in the last financial year the real increase in fares on short-haul routes was 4.5 per cent compared with 5.4 per cent on longer haul routes. I think that is a very interesting finding in view of the recent restructuring of our airline fare structure to reduce the penalties on travellers from far-flung parts of Australia, for example, people travelling from the Northern Territory, North Queensland and Western Australia to other parts of Australia. It is surprising indeed to me to see that in the financial year just ended we had larger increases in domestic air fares on the shorter haul routes. That simply means that the trend, which we have noticed in recent years, has been reversed to make relatively more expensive short-haul travel in Australia. I think that is a very surprising finding in the circumstances. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.19) —I wish also to make a comment on the Independent Air Fares Committee report for 1983-84. I do so for two reasons. One reason is to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that mention was made in the report of the death of a former member of the House of Representatives, an economist and member of the Independent Air Fares Committee, the Hon. Kevin Cairns, who died on 6 July 1984. The tribute to him is contained in chapter 10 of the Independent Air Fares Committee report. It was Kevin Cairns who in fact pointed to the problems associated with discretionary expenditure. He pointed to the fact that in order to find that group which is being affected by the current economic climate one needs to look at discretionary expenditure and how that expenditure is reduced. Of course holiday travel, particularly holiday travel interstate on aircraft, does involve discretionary expenditure. The figures made available to me by Kevin Cairns show that families are substantially affected by the current economic climate to the extent that they are spending less in real terms on holidays, including holiday travel. As far as Tasmania is concerned, it is quite clear that the Bass Strait has a marked effect on the capability and capacity of families to travel interstate, not only for discretionary reasons such as holidays but also for more urgent reasons, perhaps concerning relations on the mainland. It is of concern to those of us from Tasmania that air fares are on the increase, and are increasing at a greater rate than is inflation. I believe that the average working person in the State of Tasmania has enough problems as it is in trying to make ends meet, without being faced with regular increases in air fares. As Senator Maguire said and as is detailed in the report, air fares have increased at a greater rate than has inflation. I believe this is a matter that must give concern to all those from Tasmania in this place and in the other place. Of course I recognise that special arrangements have been made by various governments in respect of Tasmania. However, the fact is that the cost of flying between Tasmania and the mainland is quite substantial, and that should be borne in mind when people consider reports such as that of the Independent Air Fares Committee. I have no doubt that the Committee is doing a reasonable job in all the circumstances. It has an unenviable job, a task which it is required to perform by statute. I felt it was necessary for me to draw attention to the work it is doing, to draw attention to the fact that one of its members who contributed much to the work of the Committee, Kevin Cairns, has died and that in fact tribute has been paid to him on page 35 in chapter 10 of the report. I draw the attention of honourable senators to that chapter which deals with Kevin Cairns. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.25) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Before I comment on the two papers before the Senate, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Government has in this, the second last week of sittings, commenced the practice of tabling very large numbers of documents at a time when there is really no opportunity for us to debate them. I see Senator Coleman here and I imagine she would like to debate a number of things, whether they relate to Aboriginals and uranium, to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or whatever. The point is that under sessional orders, given there is no General Business and given the truncation of the parliamentary session because of the unnecessary early election called by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we will not get an opportunity to address ourselves to some very significant matters. I have moved that the Senate take note of the report on the exposure of Australians to radiation at Maralinga and a report on the British nuclear tests in Australia by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, but the list also contains the annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Construction, as well a whole series of reports on matters of importance to the housing industry. There is also the annual report of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and we find also the Penington report, from that very important Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. There is a report on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and- Senator Harradine —And a minor thing like Australia's population trends and prospects. Senator CHANEY —That is right. Senator Harradine reminds me that we have the report on Australian population trends, which is important not merely from the point of view of immigration but also for the planning of our social security services and indeed for the planning of basic services for the Australian community generally. So, Mr Deputy President, I simply ask the Government to take note of the very unsatisfactory situation in which it has placed us. It is totally unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Opposition that we should have so little opportunity to deal with matters of such importance. By the time the Parliament resumes next year-happily in the hands of a better government, we expect-many of these reports will have lost the immediacy that makes debate now so important. I think the only answer for the Senate, and indeed for the Parliament in this sort of situation, is to remain sitting until it has dealt with all matters that it believes need to be dealt with. I say that having been in government myself and having heard the complaints of oppositions. I do think that in this place, where the Government does not control business, there is an opportunity for the Parliament to assert itself and I simply give notice that I hope that in future the Senate will be prepared to exert its own authority to ensure that these matters get adequate debate. I know Senator Sir John Carrick wishes to speak on these reports of which I have moved the Senate take note, so I return briefly to them. The first is simply a letter from the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council to the Minister to whom it is responsible, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen. That letter is important because it acknowledges that some additional material has been made available relating to the exposure of Australian servicemen to radiation during the Buffalo series of nuclear tests at the Maralinga test range in 1956 and the stationing of men at closer range than that normally allowed. The important thing to which I want to draw attention is that the finding of AIRAC is that the amendments do not affect the conclusion that the men were not over-exposed to radiation. I am sure that will be of relief to people who are concerned in this matter. Perhaps more importantly, there is a letter and a report attached, dated 13 August 1984, in which AIRAC comments on what has become known as the report of the Kerr Committee, the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, which was established by Senator Peter Walsh to review an earlier AIRAC report on data on atmospheric fallout arising from British nuclear tests in Australia. The Kerr Committee was extremely critical, and we now find that AIRAC advises the Minister that it has grave reservations on the quality and value of that report. I do not have time to go into the detail of that. The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council said that the Kerr Committee had produced no evidence to show that the AIRAC report was misleading or that it gave rise to erroneous conclusions on the major issue of risks to the Australian population. The Council said in conclusion: We regret that the Kerr Committee appears to have set out to discredit the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council and AIRAC 9- I interpolate by saying that is the particular report- by raising doubts about the competence and integrity of the Council and misrepresenting information in the report, without providing any objective evidence to validate its criticisms. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(5.31) —I need a little guidance on this matter, Mr Deputy President. A royal commission is now sitting on this matter and I need to know how far, given the existence of that inquiry, we can discuss the report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator may discuss the report as fully as she wishes, but honourable senators should bear in mind that what they say may prejudice the hearings. Senator COLEMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. However, some of the matters raised in the letter from the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council are already being raised before the Royal Commission into the British Nuclear Tests in Australia. That creates some difficulty in this chamber, particularly with a report such as this. I simply take the opportunity to point out to the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, that when the previous Government was in office, we constantly complained that immediately prior to an election reports would come down which created some difficulty for those of us who were concerned about a particular area and on which we were not given adequate time. This is one of those occasions. In regard to papers Nos 2 and 3, on which I would like to make a more positive contribution, these matters are being raised at a late time in our sittings. The Leader of the Opposition also said that some matters raised in the report would be a relief to those concerned. It is obvious from the information going to the Royal Commission that a lot of those people are not convinced that AIRAC' s ninth report was adequate. I do not believe the matters raised in this report will cause them to be any more relieved than they were then. Evidence is coming out of the Royal Commission that people are suffering as a result, presumably, of their exposure to radiation levels which were considerably higher than expected. The problem with a good deal of the evidence given before the Commission appears to be that a lot of the dosimeters were not registering correctly and that, even if they were, the superior officers frequently did not know what to do with them. Only a few days ago a Press report stated that a witness had said before the Commission that he had taken his dosimeter back to his senior officer , who had discarded it even though it was registering a reasonably high level at that time. It does not give the people who faced that position in the tests any relief at all to have a report of this nature coming down saying that, although there have been several successive revisions of data, the figures in the report are only to some extent final. It says, for instance, that the distances and the amounts of radiation received by those people are 'presumed' to be of a safe level. It says that, even in the light of new information coming forward now, the dosimeters, or some of them, were not registering correctly. Even where information was available as to what the registered levels should have been, the senior officers were not always aware of what they should do with that information-whether it should have just been given to their superiors. Or, as obviously occurred at some stages, the dosimeters were simply discarded. That would account for the matters raised in the report that all the dosimeters were not returned. The letter from AIRAC dated 2 August says on page 1: The levels of blast, shock, and optical or thermal radiations experienced were not in any way sufficient to cause injury or ill health. Once again we return to the problem of whether we are talking of ill health caused immediately or ill health that develops many years afterwards. That is the situation which has developed not only here in Australia, but in relation to all the atomic testing that has been done in a number of places throughout the world. We are now seeing, some 30 years afterwards, a degree of illness occurring among people who were present at such testing. We do not have the answers. I doubt very much whether AIRAC has the answers. The answers certainly have not been included in the radiation report. I know that the-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.36) —The Senate has before it two very important reports. I would ask the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to ensure, if it has not already been done, that these reports go to the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia. They are fundamental to it and I would ask that that be done. A great deal of publicity has been given to the report of the Expert Committee on the Review of Data on Atmospheric Fallout Arising from British Nuclear Tests in Australia, the Kerr Committee. When that Committee was set up I made the point in this chamber that it was impossible to give to a committee to do in the space of two weeks the job of surveying highly technical subjects which would take months to do. Inevitably , when the Kerr Committee's report appeared apart from any other criticism that may be directed to it, it suffered from that defect. In the time available to it , that Committee could not have discharged its terms of reference. It is a sad fact that we now have before us 27 pages from a body which has served this country very well indeed. I refer to the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council, which comprises very distinguished people who set out clinically chapter by chapter, paragraph by paragraph, their conclusions criticising the Kerr Committee. I do not want to adjudicate between any of them. We must always remember that we are dealing with human beings. I sympathise with Senator Coleman. I repeat what I said many times when I was a Minister in this chamber. If there are in Australia any of those 15,000 people who now believe that having been to Maralinga they are suffering at all from any kind of illness or any kinds of effects, I plead with them, as I did as a Minister many times, to come forward and give their information to the Department of Resources and Energy. I plead with them to take the opportunity to go before the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Commission and have a medical examination. I made that plea many times, and under my ministry we set up a complete health study to try to locate the 15,000 people concerned. We located about 11,000 alive and discovered that about 1,500 had died. We urged people to come forward to get a medical examination. Nothing should be hidden, everything should be brought out; but anecdotal evidence is not good enough. Those who are before the Royal Commission or who propose to go before it, should go through the process, if they have not done so already, of approaching the Government, obtaining medical examinations and coming before the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Commission. That Commission in itself has the onus of proof upon it, so that compensation there is more generous than it would be under ordinary common law. I make this plea because after a lapse of 30 or 40 years all sorts of statements will be made. I do not criticise those who are making those statements but we need to get at the facts. This is a story about individuals and one must ask: Were they or were they not hurt? There is only one test. The death certificates show no pattern, so the health study says, nor do the morbidity statistics of those alive today. Let us take them one by one, and let us help them if there is a need to do so. That is what we need to do. I cannot abide the horrible revelation in these documents of scientists quarrelling with each other because of some apparent difference of view. That does no good to anybody at all. I repeat that AIRAC has served Australia very well indeed. If there is to be some analysis of its ninth report, let it be done thoroughly and not in a fortnight. Let us not have the disgraceful situation of the public of Australia having to read headlines about which nobody knows the truth or falsity. I commend the fact that AIRAC has come forward with the report but, above all else, I urge that the Royal Commission be given all available documents. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.40) —The two papers, 'Exposure of Australians to Radiation at Maralinga' and 'British Nuclear Tests in Australia', deal with matters which, as Senator Sir John Carrick said, are of extreme importance to the Senate and to Australia. They are particularly important to me because they relate to the outback where a lot of people that I have known over the years have lived; many of them lived there when the nuclear tests took place . I have an interest in the matter because of those people who were at wayside places and stations, and the Aboriginal people. There must be much more debate on these papers but time does not permit it. As previous speakers have said, we have some 32 papers in front of us. Papers 14, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are actually ministerial statements that were tabled in the House of Representatives last week. They were never tabled in the Senate. Time was not allowed for debate of those statements and they have now been bundled into this group of 32 papers. We will not have the opportunity to discuss these very important papers. We will not touch today on very many other papers, such as No. 12, which is a ministerial statement on regional commercial television services which are of extreme importance to people of the Northern Territory and the outback. The annual report of the Australian Federal Police likewise is a matter of some importance to me because it relates to very many matters concerning the north, whether drugs, coastal surveillance or a reference to Pine Gap. It is a very important report that I would wish to discuss at length. Another very important report is that on the social impact of uranium mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory. Senator Walters —No. 14, the Penington inquiry. Senator KILGARIFF —Yes, we have referred to that. Very many of the papers need the attention of the Senate for very many hours. The time for discussion of papers, 30 minutes, will be up in two or three minutes time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In one minute, Senator. Senator KILGARIFF —As the Deputy President said, in one minute debate will be finished on all these important papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-I just want to make clear on the basis of information I have just received from the office of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) that the two Australian Ionisation and Radiation Advisory Council reports referred to by Senator Sir John Carrick have already been referred to the McClelland Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963. The reports are either in its possession physically or about to be quite soon. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers presented earlier this day by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), with the exception of those papers in relation to which motions to take note have already been moved. In the 30 seconds that remain to deal with 29 papers, let me reiterate our complaints. We were allowed 30 minutes today to debate 32 papers. The Government should be satisfied with that as a gag. Normally on Thursday we would have General Business which would give us some opportunity to debate the other 29 papers but as a result of the Government trying to push the Senate to a conclusion before the election we are in the situation of being deprived of that right to debate the papers. All senators on this side of the chamber make great complaint about that. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under sessional orders for consideration of Government Papers has now expired. Assent to the following Bills reported: Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1984 Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1984 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1984 Medicare Levy Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Bill 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Bill 1984 Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill 1984 National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Bill 1984 Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Colston I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Sibraa I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Debate resumed. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.47) —When debate was interrupted earlier today I had spoken in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 and a very wide variety of matters that are referred to in that Bill. I had also referred to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the effects which that will have, particularly in relation to raising the cost of fuel for all oil users, especially wheat farmers and the various industries which will be hit by the extra costs. I had started to refer to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984, which proposes to exempt from payment of the coal export duty blended coal from open cut mines and underground mines. The Bill proposes that where there has been a blending of the low cost open cut high quality coking coal from certain mines with the higher cost, higher employment coal produced from underground mines there will be an exemption, but for the exemption to operate there must be an average of at least 15 per cent of underground coal in the coal which is exported. It is some sort of balancing to assist the underground coal miners, to retain some employment and to give some relief in relation to the coal export duty. (Extension of time granted) The Government's decision to exempt the coal in this way from the $3.50 a tonne export duty was announced in May of this year. This Bill is now implementing what has already been announced and what will amount to a loss of revenue of some $10m a year. I go back, without wanting to introduce politics unduly on a disputatious basis , to two matters. One is that the former Government had promised that the duty would be removed. The second is that the present coalition Opposition's resources and energy policy states: . . . the coal export levy is an anomalous impost on a part of the industry which we would abolish in our first year of office. I emphasise that. The Opposition's policy is that the whole of this coal export levy, which is anomalous and should be removed, would be removed in the first year of office after the next election. The export levy raised about $66m in the year 1983-84 and its removal would involve the loss of that income, which would have to be picked up elsewhere. I accept that. But I note that the justification for this levy has long since passed. It is a reflection of yesteryear so far as the coal industry is concerned. To the motion that the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984 be read a second time, I move the following amendment: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that, while the Government's decision to remove the duty on blended coal is to be welcomed, the severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry and the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy warrant an immediate and total removal of this duty , as proposed by the policy of the Liberal/National Coalition'. Senator Button —Has that been distributed? Senator PETER RAE —I hope it has. It ought to have been. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —No, it has not at this stage, apparently. Senator PETER RAE —I do not know where the copies are. Sometimes in the processes of this place things which are supposed to happen do not happen. I am sorry, I do not know where it has got to. I had copies of it and it was my understanding that it had been circulated quite some time ago. I apologise to those who have not received it. There are other matters to which I would like to refer but, noting that I have gone over my time, I thank the Senate for the extension. The debate has covered three associated Bills and it is sometimes hard to deal with three matters within 30 minutes. I have gone a little over time, so I will save the other matters that I wish to raise for the Committee stage. I thank the Senate. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.53) —I will speak only briefly on these Bills, because the Australian Democrats support the legislation. We have a couple of areas of concern. One of them is that, whilst we believe that the Government has acted in a very proper way in drawing the distinction in the excise rates, particularly the new excise rates for light beer, beer with a very low alcohol content, we also believe that the Government could have taken a much more moralistic approach to this and attracted in every way possible, including in its approach to excise rates, as many people as possible, particularly young people, to a very light strength beer, if they are going to drink beer at all. We believe this, not in the context of imposing any standards on anybody, but simply because we believe that the imposition of any excise duty on a very light beer, which would negate the appeal of that beer to young people who feel that they have to drink beer, would run quite counter to all of the steps that have been taken to reduce the road toll. I wish also to make a brief comment on the increase in excise duties on aviation gasolene and aviation kerosene. We recognise that a difficult crunch decision had to be made here, but we believe that the Government had an opportunity to show its encouragement and support of people living in rural areas. It could have kept that levy down to enable people to be compensated to a degree for the fact that they are living in remote areas. I should indicate to the Opposition, which has moved a couple of amendments to this package of Bills, that the Australian Democrats will support the first amendment, which relates to the application and the procedures for the imposition of duty on the importation of hot stamping machines into Australia but at this stage-I have not even seen the second amendment yet so I do not speak with the voice of authority-from what I have heard of the second amendment the Democrats will probably not support it. But more of that in the Committee stage when I will have had an opportunity to study the amendment and find out in more detail the rationale for it. We can take that on the wing, I guess, as we quite frequently have to do in this place, in more ways than one. I make the point that the Democrats also occasionally do this to the Opposition and the Government. It can happen. We will look at the amendment in the Committee stage and I will indicate the Democrats' response to it at that point. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(5.57) —I wish to speak mainly on the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill but before I do that I wish to refer to two matters in the other Bills that we are also debating. The first is the reduction in excise on light beer. I support that move very strongly. I regret very much that the Government could not think the matter through and get it right and that it could not see that there was no place for putting a sales tax on the ultra-light beers. By doing that it has shown that it does not recognise that it has a social responsibility. Taxation can be used not only for revenue raising purposes but also for the promotion of social ends. The Australian Labor Party is always trumpeting about how we need to take money away from those who earn it and give it to those who do not work for it in the guise of social equity and the redistribution of income. I would have thought that, with that same doctrine, it could look at the imposition of sales tax on the ultra-light beers and see how counterproductive that was. If there is one thing we need to do it is to encourage people to drink less alcohol in their drinks. I feel very strongly about this. I make a modest claim to be reasonably experienced in the use of alcohol. I enjoy it, but it is a matter of major concern to me to go to parties or functions or to hotels and see the youth of this country drinking spirits in the way in which they drink them today. They did not do that 15 or 20 years ago. There are many reasons why they drink spirits. One of the reasons is the fact that increases in excise on beer have inflated the price of beer to the extent that there is now not much difference between the price of a pot of beer and a glass of spirits and mix. Sure, there are social pressures as well. I think the younger generation thinks it is more sophisticated to drink rum and coke or something like that than to drink beer. Quite clearly, the advertising that has gone on, such as 'Things go better with Coke', and the way that soft drink mixes can take bland spirits like some of the rums, vodka and gin without much of a taste of alcohol coming through, leads the young drinker into not appreciating the concentration of alcohol that he or she is drinking. People drink in the first instance for fellowship. They go to a hotel, a club or a party because they like to enjoy the company of their fellow men and women. Only alcoholics have a psychopathic need to raise the level of alcohol in their bloodstream as rapidly as possible. If we recognise that point, the thing to do is to educate the young to drink beer of low alcohol content because, above all, beer is the drink of moderation. People can certainly get intoxicated on beer, but it takes longer and it is a more gradual process than the rapid intake of spirits when their sometimes bland taste can be masked by adding mixers. I think there is a very real sociological benefit to the young drinkers in reducing the excise level on the low alcohol beers. Other speakers have referred to the case in regard to drink driving and that is equally important. I applaud the move of the Government to reduce the excise on light beers. But I think it was an act of stupidity to put a sales tax on the ultra-lights because it is socially unproductive and it places an unnecessary impost on the cost of that commodity. The other point to which I briefly refer is the increase in excise on avgas and avtur. As Senator Rae said, it operates against the private person, the small businessman in the community and those in the rural community. This Government embarked upon taxation by stealth with its automatic six monthly increase in excise on alcoholic spirits and fuel excise payments. It is ripping off millions from the community through this taxation by stealth. Not content with that, it has gone ahead, as the Budget documents state, 'in the interests of cost recovery'. Cost recovery is not defined, but I suppose it means that the enormous deficit that the Labor Party has got us into must be reduced. Senator Button —I beg your pardon? Senator MacGIBBON —The enormous deficit. Is the honourable senator hard of hearing? I refer to the enormous deficit of nearly $8 billion last year and the rubbery estimate of about $7 billion for this year. Senator Button —Where were you when your last Budget was brought down? Senator MacGIBBON —We had a deficit of $4.5 billion. The present Government's estimate of $9 billion was a lie. If the Minister looks at the Budget Statements , he will find that we ended up with a figure of $4.5 billion which is very different from the $7.9 billion with which the Government ended up on its first attempt and the $7 billion to which it is leading us in the present Budget. I return to the increase in the excise on avgas. On Sunday I attended the annual general meeting of an aero club of which I have been a member for nearly 20 years. It is the biggest, most successful and oldest aero club in Australia. When this year's accounts were presented, the President-I do not know his politics; I have never heard him discuss politics-made the announcement that this Government was the most unkind and severest in regard to aviation in the history of the country. He talked about the big hike in avgas that has taken place because of the increase in excise payments; the 20 per cent sales tax on the purchase of aircraft; and the 2 per cent import duties. All of these things harass the general aviation movement in particular. The general aviation movement involves the small businessman. Many people fly in their own aircraft to their agencies around the country. Many people have sales and maintenance tasks for which they find the use of an aircraft very valuable. They are being taxed out of business by the impost being put on them by this Government. Of course, the rural community, which contributes so much to the wealth of this country and which needs to cope with isolation and the need to cover great distances, is meeting the most severe penalties at the hands of this Government. I turn to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill which the Opposition supports. We will vote for the amendment to the motion for the second reading which has been moved by Senator Peter Rae. The only regret we have about it is that the Bill does not provide for the total removal of the coal export levy. There is no reason for this levy to be maintained any more. The incoming Liberal-National Party Government has given an undertaking that in the new year this levy will be removed from the entire coal industry. In 1975 the Labor Government under the then Minister, Mr Connor, imposed a $6 a tonne levy on high quality coking coal that was exported. The conditions that prevailed in the mid- 1970s were boom conditions. Unfortunately, neither Mr Connor nor any other member of the Labor Party had the education or the experience to realise that all mining operations are cyclical. They are a matter of boom and bust. There is a shortage of the commodity; prices rise; producers in the business make good profits; new producers come into the field; there is an over-supply; prices collapse; producers go out of business; and the cycle repeats itself. But Mr Connor looked at the situation and decided that there was money to be had by his Labor socialist Government and he placed the $6 a tonne export levy on the coal industry. Unfortunately, those lush times have passed. The Labor Government, with a burst of true socialism, thought that it was entitled to profits, again, through a redistribution of wealth from an investment that it did not make. It did not put one red cent into any coal mine in Australia. It was not happy with its company tax; it wanted more. So it placed this $6 a tonne levy on export coal. In Queensland, great developments have taken place in the Bowen Basin involving at least $8 billion of capital. Eight billion dollars has been invested and not one cent of it has come from either a State or Federal government or authority. It is all private capital. The investors of that private capital have made a huge investment and they have taken the risks that are involved in all mining operations. They are sincere, professional and they are in it for the long term. Yet they were taxed at the time by the Labor Government-a tax which still applies to some sections of the industry because under the Government's socialist doctrine it felt that, having taken no risks, it was entitled to some of the profit. The second part of Connor's move, of course, was an anti-Queensland move because he tried to shore up the inefficient underground mines in New South Wales with their featherbedding unions. The export levy applied only to Queensland mines. It did not apply to any of the New South Wales mines. Because it was a sectional tax, I have always argued that it was both unfair and unconstitutional. Its practical effect was to apply only to one or two companies engaged in coal mining in Australia. The Fraser Government promised to remove this tax and was moving progressively towards doing so. It reduced it from $6 a tonne to $4.50 and then down to $3.50. As I said earlier, in the new year we will remove it completely. This Bill provides an exemption from the payment of the $3.50 a tonne levy for those producers who blend 15 per cent of underground coal to make a high quality coking coal for export, who have consistently followed this practice for the last 12 months from mines operating before 1 July 1980; and who mine to a depth not greater than 60 metres. The effect is to exempt two mines, but six others- all owned by one company-must pay the levy. The two mines exempted are in Queensland-the CSR Ltd Moura mine and the Thiess Dampier Mitsui mine at South Blackwater. The six mines which must still pay the levy are Goonyella, Peak Downs, Saraji, Norwich, Blackwater and Gregory. An arguable case can be made that the present production from Harrow Creek and Peak Downs, of the BHP-Utah group, should also be excluded because between 5 per cent and 9 per cent of the Harrow Creek coal is blended with the Peak Downs open cut coal to raise it to the standard required for the export market. The reasons for this Bill are that the Labor Party has been forced into it to keep the two mines at Moura and South Blackwater in production. There is great overproduction at present on the international market, so there is competition and prices are being driven down. At the same time the mines face ever-increasing costs of production and the margin between profit and loss is getting narrower. One side effect of the legislation is to give some support for underground mining. That is not a bad intention of the Bill because there will come a time when the easily won open cut coal will be worked out and we will have to go to underground mining and rather than develop or have to refine further the techniques at a later date it is better that that moves hand in hand with open cut mining where it is economically possible to do so. It is very important that we keep our coal production and sales up. In 1983, $1 .7 billion was earned-10 per cent of Australia's exports-from the export of coal . In the central Queensland mines we have the most efficient coal extraction in the world and therefore we start with a price advantage from a marketing point of view. But we do have two imposts on the industry. The first is the government costs that are imposed on it and the second is the freight to our markets. We are a long way away from our export markets. We sell some coal to Europe, which is the other side of the world. Our big markets in Japan are further away from us than they are from North America. Both Canada and the United States of America are our competitors in those markets. The Federal Government has two imposts on the coal export business. It has the export levy that we are talking about in this Bill and it has the export control system under which the coal exporters have to labour. Additionally, of course, we have the company tax which every company pays; there is no question about that. But as well as Federal imposts all mining companies bear a considerable burden of State costs. The State costs now are considerably higher than the load that is imposed on them by Federal charges. The State costs include royalties, rail freights, port charges and the whole cost of setting up the mining ventures , building the towns and the facilities for the employees of the mines to live in. All these charges are proper and legitimate. The only question that can be raised is the scale of those charges. I guess that, as Federal parliamentarians, we have an interest because if the State government taxes the operations of a company through these levies there is not much profit left for company tax to be paid to the Federal Government. But if we start with the proposition that the Crown owns the minerals for the benefit of the community and the nation at large , it follows that the authority to prospect, the granting of mining leases and the royalty payments on productions, all flow to the States. By and large royalty payments for coal are reasonable and moderate. The Queensland Government has chosen to make rail freight a taxing venture over and above the cost of recovery of the service involved. This has reached a very high level in Queensland. Roughly 22 per cent of the selling price of coal goes for rail freight. Put another way round, it costs twice as much to rail a tonne of coal from the mine to the port in Queensland as it does to ship it from the port to Japan. Roughly, the Queensland Government earns between $8 and $11 per tonne profit on each export tonne of coal. That goes to the State Government that really has made no investment in the system at all because all the infrastructure has been put in place by the companies. Indeed all the railway lines have been built by the companies as part of an agreement with the State Government. This ought to be pointed out from a public information point of view . More profitability from the coal mines goes to the State governments than to the Federal Government and to the shareholders. But we do not control the States , nor should we seek to do so. I would like to turn in a little more detail to the matter of Federal Government costs. This export levy is applied to only one company-BHP-Utah with its six mines that still produce and qualify for, or are judged as having to pay , this export levy. There is no question in my mind that this Government recognises that this tax is a poor tax, an inefficient tax and an undesirable tax. One needs only to read the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) to confirm this. I would like to quote the paragraph that refers to it. The Minister said: The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth-State resource rent tax package. However, we recognise that this may not be practicable in the immediate future. That is a clear statement to me. This Government recognises that this tax has a lot of drawbacks, that it is a bad tax. I repeat part of the final sentence in that paragraph: However, we recognise that this may not be practicable . . . The Government is making reference to the resource rental tax in agreement with the States. The Government should have the courage to come out and say: 'We will abandon the tax'. It knows very well that it will never get agreement with the States on the resource rental tax proposition that has been put up by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, which is totally discredited and no longer has any mileage in it as a negotiating document around the country . Let us recognise that this tax- Senator Peter Rae —You mean the discredited Minister for Resources and Energy? Senator MacGIBBON —Yes, totally discredited. This tax has no place in the argument. It can say 'we would like to move towards that position and if we can get that we will get rid of the coal export duty'. But this Government knows very well that it will never get agreement with the States on this matter. Let us recognise the inequitable nature of this tax and do something about it. It is quite possible to phase out this tax over two or three years. The revenue forgone is not very much. It was about $60m last year, but because the company paid that $60m this Government lost around $30m in company tax. So the net loss if the tax is phased out is roughly 50 per cent of what the Government is getting. The second big impost on the coal mining industry, from an export point of view , is the export control system. In effect, it is a price surveillance authority where this Labor Government is trying to set a minimum price for coal. This will have two effects. First of all, there is a very big administrative cost on any coal exported. Companies have to send people backwards and forwards all around the world, conducting negotiations which could be done at far less cost, far more efficiently and with far greater speed if they were not tied to the apron strings of a Labor government saying: 'Please, sir, can we accept this price per tonne of coal from this buyer?' It also reduces the negotiating ability of the company with the overseas purchasers because they are not in a position to be able to close a deal on the spot. They are denied any flexibility. In any commercial agreement, when one is negotiating on price and contract terms, a company wants the maximum degree of flexibility. Although there is no legislation in place requiring a minimum price, the Labor Government has made it very clear to all the Queensland coal exporters that, if they do not toe the line on what this Government thinks is a minimum price, they will not be able to get their mineral export permits and therefore they will not be able to export their product. That is a very effective weapon to hold over the head of any coal exporter. The point is that the Australian Labor Party cannot understand the market and it cannot trust the companies to negotiate. The companies know the market; that is their livelihood. They want the best return for themselves and they want it for their shareholders. Unlike public servants and Ministers, they are under pressure from shareholders who are hungry for a maximum return. They know what the market will bear. It should be a matter that is left to their own commercial judgment. In Australia today no company exporting coal will willingly sell for less than the best price it can get. These people are businessmen and that is what they are about. It is absolutely nonsensical for this Government to say: ' Unless we set a minimal price you will sell us out and sell out the Australian people'. It is absolute nonsense and it just shows that the Labor Party does not understand the commercial world. Before I close I would like to talk briefly about the future for the coal industry. At present it has an important place in Australia's export earnings and, therefore, in relation to our standard of living. Coal will continue to have an important place in the foreseeable future. The coal market is very competitive and very tough. There are many producers in the market at present and more are coming on. Nearly all those producers are closer to markets than Australia. So the pressure is on Australia unrelentingly to market its coal as cheaply as it can-to get it out of the ground, onto the ships and into the markets where it is required at the most competitive rate possible. Canada alone is coming into production at a rate which will be roughly half of the whole of Australia's current export. In the next few years that country will have the ability to market between 40 million and 50 million tonnes of coal a year, and most of that will be directed towards the markets in which we sell our coal. Japan, of course, is our big market, but Japan itself is in the business of diversifying its suppliers of coal for security reasons. Of course, Japan is moving away from high power-consuming basic industries into higher technology, which demands less raw electrical energy than has existed in the past. Coal faces some pretty formidable environmental problems. Acid rain has been getting an increasing amount of publicity, and the Northern Hemisphere faces great danger from it. Sulphides are exhausted into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. An acidic solution is formed which then precipitates in the form of acid rain. I was reading the other day that the whole of the Black Forest appears to be dying off. The steel industry is a big user of coal. Of course, at the present time, with the downturn in economic performance around the world and the low production of steel, the demand for coking coal is down and looks to be down for some years ahead. The movement to nuclear power, which will accelerate in future years as acid rain and other pollution problems from coal burning continue, will result in a decrease in the demand for steaming coal . Be that as it may, there will be good markets for coal in the years ahead. Australia needs to maintain and increase its market share because the export of coal is very important to us. I hope we do not face a situation in this country where the Labor Party gives away our coal markets in the way it has given away our beef markets and has tried to give away our sugar markets. Private industry has made the Australian coal exporting trade, and this trade has benefited the Australian community enormously. Private industry has responded magnificently to opening up these fields, developing the markets and delivering the product. I welcome this legislation because it winds back an impost that the Government imposed on that magnificent effort. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.23) —The Senate is debating three tariff Bills-the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No . 2) 1984 and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984. The first matter I wish to raise concerns the excise on beer. This legislation claims to vary the excise rate according to the alcohol strength of beer, but in fact it divides beer into three categories and imposes an excise rate in relation to each of those categories. The first category is beer with an alcohol content in excess of 3.8 per cent by volume on which the excise is 66c per litre . The second category is beers ranging from 1.15 per cent but not over 3.8 per cent by volume on which the excise is 58c per litre-in other words, 8c less than the higher content beer. The final category is beers of 1.15 per cent or less, which are free of excise. Let me say right at the outset that I congratulate the Government on introducing a low alcohol beer free of excise. As I understand it, though, there is only one beer in that category at the present moment in Australia, and that is Swan Special Light with an alcohol content of 0.9 per cent. Having thrown a rose at the Government, let me now throw a brickbat. What the Government has done is impose a sales tax of some 20 per cent on that beer. By treating the beer as a soft drink it has imposed a sales tax of some 20 per cent and has taken away the advantage it gave to that beer and so has destroyed, in effect, the good work it had already put in. Let me say also that it is clear that the beer drinker in Australia is outrageously heavily taxed and that, to me, has always seemed grossly unfair. It is almost as if governments in this country wish people to start drinking solid spirits-brandies and whiskeys-rather than beer. I am sure that such a practice is not good for younger people; I suppose we cannot do much about the older people nowadays. If the Government is serious in its concern about alcohol abuse , in terms of equity may I suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce ( Senator Button) that some consideration be given to adopting a sliding scale based on alcohol content. For example, in the higher bracket Coopers has an alcohol content of 5.5 per cent, Swan Lager 5 per cent, Fosters Export 4.9 per cent, Carlton Draught 4.9 per cent, KB 4.7 per cent and Tooheys Draught 4.6 per cent. The middle bracket includes Carlton Light, which has an alcohol content of 3.3 per cent, LA 2.7 per cent and Tooheys 2.2 per cent. If there were a sliding scale rather than three categories manufacturers could probably be persuaded to get the alcohol content down even further. I think that that would be good for the people who like to have a beer. I suggest that the Government ought to give some consideration to that. I acknowledge that the Government will say that there will be administrative difficulties, but I do not think there would be any more administrative difficulties in having a range or five of six scales rather than only three. In the few minutes remaining before the suspension of the sitting I would like to turn quickly to the substantive changes to the tariff, which include a reduction in developing country preference margins for fireworks from mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. I recently had occasion to make representations to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to a Bendigo company involved in the production of ceramics. Senator Button —Electric jugs. Senator LEWIS —Electric jugs, the Minister points out. I do not think there would be any problem in mentioning the name of the company. The very well known firm of Cooper and Cooke (Ceramics) Pty Ltd of Bendigo has the most modern and innovative ceramics factory in Australia and maybe in the world. The firm is in trouble in regard to one of its products because of competition from mainland communist China. The company was concerned that it was being subjected to dumping or subsidised competition. When it made inquiries of the Australian Trade Commissioner in Peking it was advised that the Government of communist China was adamant that China did not produce ceramic jugs. The Chinese Government had no record of it; it was not able to give any indication of the cost of manufacture. Of course, the Bendigo company knows who the manufacturer is. It is a firm called Liling Porcelain Arts and Craft Pottery in the province of Liling. however, as I said, the Government of the People's Republic of China does not know anything about it. I raise this matter because I am interested to know whether the Industries Assistance Commission has encountered similar difficulties in dealing with the communist Chinese Government when ascertaining the cost of manufacture of goods such as the fireworks which are mentioned in this legislation. It seems there are communications problems with communist China. Until the matter is resolved satisfactorily it appears necessary for the Government to provide some machinery so that Australian companies can be given temporary assistance or protection from such imports or some other assistance until such time as the Government of China is able to satisfy Australian requirements and establish beyond any doubt that Chinese companies are not dumping goods in Australia to the detriment of Australian manufacturers. The Opposition is not opposing these Bills. However, I think that the Government needs to apply its mind very seriously to the matters raised by Opposition speakers in regard to the legislation. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.00) —The Senate is debating cognately three tariff Bills. In the course of this afternoon and this morning several honourable senators contributed to the debate, and I will make some brief comments about remarks made in the course of the debate. Senator Lewis made a thoughtful speech about beer drinking and particularly the way in which the excise on beer should be structured. He suggested a sliding scale of excise duty rather than the present grouped scale. I am sure that at an appropriate time that could be taken into account. He also raised the question of developing country preferences and referred particularly to a company in Bendigo of which he has some knowledge and to the import competition for that company's products from the People's Republic of China. He asked me to tell him what the Industries Assistance Commission thought about this. I say with great respect to him that I think there is some confusion regarding the role of the IAC and dumping complaints, which are not initially at least in the hands of the IAC, and how countervailing duties are assessed in the case of countries such as the People's Republic of China. He could have widened that question to include what are sometimes called the demand economies. The practice is to assess the value of goods produced in such countries by using a third country as a check, as it were, for comparative purposes. That is the best method available to government, particularly the Customs Service, to do that. If Senator Lewis wants to follow up that matter, I am sure that can be done. Senator MacGibbon made some comments, particularly about the coal export levy, and I think quite fairly pointed out that government charges, whether they be Federal or State-particularly State charges in the case of Queensland-bear heavily on the profitability of such an industry and need to be subject to constant examination. The only thing that aroused my ire, indeed my interest, in what Senator MacGibbon had to say was his attack on the coal export levy, which was introduced by the late Rex Connor in the time of the Labor Government from 1972 to 1975. He characterised that levy as some sort of socialist plot. All I can say to Senator MacGibbon is that there were seven years of Liberal government when the socialist plot of Rex Connor might have been denounced or indeed when the policy might have been changed-and it was not. I refer him to some of the statements made over the years by Liberal-National Party government spokesmen on this issue. Senator Chaney, when referring quite recently to the coal export levy, said: We will abolish the coal levy in our first year of office. I remind Senator MacGibbon and other Opposition senators that precisely the same promise was made in 1975. In seven years of office that promise was not carried out. Between 1976 and 1978 there were a number of versions, leading finally in 1981 to a statement by the discredited former Treasurer that the phasing out of that policy was 'no longer appropriate'. Senator Peter Rae —We didn't break over 120 promises in our first 18 months. Senator BUTTON —If the honourable senator wants me to add them up I will some time, but I am referring to the coal export levy at the moment which is the subject of debate. It may be painful for me to quote from what the discredited former Treasurer said; nonetheless the coal export levy is the topic we are dealing with and that is the one I wish to concentrate on. In the 1976 Budget Speech it was stated: It is the intention of the Government to remove this particular levy . . . but for budgetary reasons . . . it is not possible to recover it in one stroke. It will, however, be reduced immediately, in what the Government regards as a first step towards completely phasing out this particular tax within three years . In the 1977 Budget Speech the then Treasurer stated: I re-affirm the Government's intention to remove the remaining duty next year . . . In the 1978 Budget Speech the then Treasurer stated: The Government has decided to delay the phasing out of the remaining duty on export coal. And so it goes on. I have referred to what the then Treasurer said in the 1981 Budget Speech, but let me just draw attention to the coal export duty receipts. In 1976, the first year of the Fraser Government, export duty receipts totalled $121m; by 1982-83 they were $66m. I think that is somewhere in the order of the figure at the moment. But I only mention these things because it is sometimes said: 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone'. I make no reference to the former Secretary of the Department of the Treasury when I say that. I simply say that there is not much point in Senator MacGibbon giving us a lecture here about this Budget when one looks at the record of the previous Government. Senator MacGibbon referred to one other matter which is not particularly relevant to this debate. He suggested that this Government had imposed a 2 per cent revenue duty on the aircraft industry and a 20 per cent sales tax on this industry. Neither of those things is true; they were both imposed by the Fraser Government. They are the only matters which I wish to deal with in respect of the speech made by Senator MacGibbon. Senator Peter Rae —Do you accept the rest of his comments? Senator BUTTON —No, I do not, but I do not waste the Senate's time, as some people do, in dealing with irrelevant issues. Senator Rae has moved an amendment to the second reading motion in regard to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3). I just want to put one or two matters on the record because that amendment is particularly directed to the question of some dissatisfaction, legitimate in some ways, over the issue of the tariff imposed on hot stamping machines. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill covers a number of matters, including tariff changes arising from the Budget and decisions on Industry Assistance Commission reports. However, the Opposition has directed its attention in the amendment-I understand the reasons why-to the arrangements being made for hot stamping machines. I think it is important that honourable senators have a clear understanding of what is being proposed in this legislation in respect of these machines. The action being taken is in accordance with a long standing approach to such problems-I am not necessarily saying it is a correct approach-by successive governments and occurs where a change in the tariff classification of goods has the effect of removing the protection previously understood to have been received by Australian industry. These changes in classification generally arise from decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the courts, which I emphasise are not considering the rates of duty payable and, hence, the industry assistance aspects. They are examining the characteristics of the goods concerned and ruling on the classification in terms of the tariff description which accords with an international convention. The effect of a changed classification can be the loss of tariff protection previously enjoyed by a local industry following an earlier Government decision on a report by the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority. On the understanding that it receives that level of protection commercial decisions are often made involving investments in capital equipment. It has been the practice of successive governments to take measures to restore such protection where it is changed by classification decisions. Examples of this are: Rubberised fabric in 1978; boys clothing in 1978; coins and medallions in 1982; polyurethane systems in 1983; and temperature control units also in 1983. I should emphasise that action to achieve this purpose is not taken by Customs quietly behind closed doors. It is taken very publicly. It is initially taken by inclusion in a Customs tariff proposal introduced into the House of Representatives or by a Gazette notice when Parliament is not sitting. It is then confirmed into law through Bills such as the present one. It is therefore open to Parliament to reject the action proposed, but this raises the question of alternative action. The alternative is for the Government, following the classification decision resulting in reduced protection, to take no action at all. The affected industry can either live with the consequences, which may mean a cessation of production of the goods concerned, or it may seek reinstatement of protection through the IAC or TAA processes. This latter course must involve delays in time, considerable costs to many interests, not just the industry concerned, and a period of uncertainty. I believe it is because the latter course has been seen to be unreasonable that governments have chosen the course reflected in the Bill before us today. There has been some public comment about the case of hot stamping machines coming, I suggest, from importing interests, quite legitimately. There is, however, a local producer, Milford-Astor Pty Ltd, which on the basis of a Customs classification made in 1981 understood that these machines were protected with a rate of 20 per cent, which has recently been phased down to 15 per cent. Customs considered that the machines were included in the tariff item covered by the IAC report on miscellaneous industrial machinery in 1978, which led to the 20 per cent rate of duty. The fact that the subsequent Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision has the effect of saying that the machines were not covered by that inquiry, does not change the fact that the administering department believed it did. Certainly since 1981 Customs have operated on that basis. As such this case does not differ from those I referred to earlier. It conforms with the longstanding practice. Milford Astor is a relatively small company engaged in producing what it regards as high technology machines. It currently employs about 40 people and has made significant investment in export marketing of its machines. The company has informed me that any reduction in the tariff operative before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision would: Firstly, increase import competition; secondly, reduce the batch size in production; thirdly, raise unit costs; and fourthly, reduce competitiveness on export markets. For the reasons I have outlined the Government rejects any claim that there has been improper action in the case of hot stamping machines. The coalition parties took similar action when they were in government. I am, however, aware that the practice involved in such cases has been questioned, as I said before, quite legitimately in some quarters, and I can inform the Senate that it is my intention to ensure that the mechanisms involved are reviewed. The purpose of such a review would be to see whether other courses are available but which do not involve the costs and uncertainties for industry that I referred to earlier. I read that matter into the Hansard because it is a statement of practice and policy which has been in existence for some time. I want to make it clear that as far as the Government is concerned, because of the queries that have been raised, it is quite happy to have that practice reviewed. I am prepared to undertake that the Department of Industry and Commerce will conduct such a review and report early next year to the Parliament the result of any such review. It was suggested in Senator Rae's amendment initially that it might be desirable to send the matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. We would not be apprehensive about that. As I understand Senator Rae's amendment we feel that in the interests of public exposure of the issues the course which I have suggested as an alternative may be more expeditious, less time consuming and productive of the desired degree of public exposure which the issue would certainly have when the findings of such a review were reported back to the Senate. Because I have suggested that course, we oppose the amendment which has been moved by Senator Rae. The course of action which I have just outlined publicly has been privately drawn to the attention of Senator Rae and Senator Jack Evans, the Australian Democrats' spokesman on these matters. I return quickly to the coal export levy, which created some comment in the course of the debate. From the Government's point of view the abolition of the coal export duty would have been consistent with the Government's overall approach to rationalising taxes and charges on the coal industry, particularly if it had occurred through the introduction of a resource rent tax. However, such a move would require support from State governments which, as I think Senator MacGibbon pointed out, has not at this stage been forthcoming. Under the circumstances the Government was persuaded that the duty was having a particularly adverse impact on mines dependent upon underground operations to maintain coal quality. The Government does not consider that the same case exists for those producers who remain subject to the duty. Their existence is not under any threat from the imposition of the duty. Nonetheless, having said that, I take on board some of the comments which have been made by way of general criticism of Government charges on industry. Those matters are in the mind of the Government and are of concern. I thank honourable senators for their general support of the legislation and for the comments which have been made. I commend the three Bills to the Senate. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.18) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement in reply to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) has suggested as a course of action in relation to the amendment which I have moved. Leave granted. Senator PETER RAE —I thank the Senate. The Opposition does not wish to complicate what is a matter of very considerable importance to the people involved but not of sufficient importance to the public of Australia to hold up the Senate at a time when a lot of legislation needs to be dealt with. We see from Senator Button's suggestion that he will undertake to ensure that the Department of Industry and Commerce will review the processes which have been engaged in in relation to the hot stamping machines sequence of events which, I think, have been outlined adequately already and that this would be undertaken by the Department and reported to the Senate next year. My only concern is that by doing this it may delay some action which might otherwise have arisen had the proposal which I put forward originally been followed. I would like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Industry and Trade, Senator Ruth Coleman, who having had some notice that it was likely that this matter would be raised in the Senate, had already done a considerable amount of work to prepare for a very quick investigation into the subject matter of my proposed amendment, that is: The application of the procedures for the imposition of duty on the importation of hot stamping machines into Australia, with particular reference to the propriety of the administrative action involved in increasing the duty without a report from the Industries Assistance Commission. We are indebted to Senator Coleman and her Committee for having done, in anticipation of receipt of the reference, a considerable amount of work to prepare for an expedited inquiry. As opposed to that, the Government and the Democrats have make it clear in the discussions which have taken place that they will not support my proposal. In the light of the Minister's undertaking that a departmental review will be instituted immediately, I believe that it is better to accept that undertaking and not proceed with my proposal. However, I ask the Minister to ensure that the departmental review is undertaken expeditiously and, if he finds that some administrative action is necessary, to put that action in train forthwith so that there is no delay between now and when we are in government after the election. I hope that some executive action can be taken as the result of the inquiry which I anticipate and hope will not take long. In seeking leave to withdraw my amendment and accepting the Minister's assurance, I also add that I hope the Minister will take those two steps-to have an expeditious inquiry and seek to take any necessary action to achieve justice for the parties to all this at the earliest possible time. I see this as the best step arising out of all the attitudes prevailing in this chamber at the moment. Amendment in regard to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984-by leave- withdrawn. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.24) —I thought that I indicated earlier that we would conduct an expeditious inquiry into those matters but I repeat that undertaking. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.25) —On behalf of the Australian Democrats, as an amendment to the Opposition's amendment in regard to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill I move: Leave out all words after 'immediate', insert 'investigation into the application of an alternative tax, including a ''pit head'' tax'. The original amendment of the Opposition read to the effect that there be an immediate and total removal of the duty as proposed by the policy of the Liberal -National coalition. I think that the case has been made by Senator Button that that may well be part of the Liberal-National coalition policy, as it has been since 1976; but whilst in government, the coalition did nothing to remove that tax completely, and it is fascinating that the courage suddenly surges when a party is in opposition and can remove taxes for which it has no responsibility. Rather than take such a peremptory step and impose the will of the Opposition on the Government in terms of its tax policy, the Democrats prefer that the Government consider alternative taxes, and that amongst those alternatives it includes a pit-head tax which, I understand, was an alternative preferred by the industry. A pit-head tax is a form of resource rental tax which would have the attraction of providing a flexible tax based on the profitability of the mine rather than being a broad-based tax which is universally applied. We would therefore prefer that type of investigation to take place rather than the peremptory demand of the Opposition to be granted. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.27) — The Opposition, believing as it does that the time has come in Australia for the coal export duty to be removed altogether , does not see as attractive the idea that we substitute the coal export duty for a pit-head tax, which would be just substituting one tax for another. We will therefore not be supporting the amendment of the Australian Democrats and we will continue to support the general notion that the situation in the coal industry is such that it is an appropriate time-whatever the situation in the 1970s to which Senator Button referred-for the coal export duty to be removed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.28) —Of course that view is appropriate because the Liberals are in opposition; it was never appropriate during the seven years in which the Liberals were in government, although Senator MacGibbon described it earlier, I think, as the most iniquitous tax that he had ever heard of. Senator MacGibbon —I used to speak against it in the Budget debates, and I am proud of the fact that it dropped from $6 to $4.50 and to $3.50. Senator BUTTON —Yes, and the honourable senators had about as much effect then as he has had tonight. The Government is not of the view that the tax should be removed immediately, otherwise it would not be in the legislation. For that reason, the Australian Democrats' amendment is more acceptable. I reiterate, with approval, the words of Mr John Howard, who said in two Budget speeches. ' Now is not the time to phase out the export levy on coal'. That is clearly the Government's view, otherwise the legislation would not be before the Senate. For that reason I think that the Democrats' amendment, which requires an investigation of this matter-the spirit of that is consistent with the view that the tax is undesirable-is more acceptable to the Government. I should say to Senator Evans that there is a production tax on coal at the moment. I believe sometimes it is called a pit-head tax. It is collected at the point of production and goes to finance miners' long service leave entitlement. The fact that the tax is there does not preclude the terminology of the Democrats' amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(8.31) —I would think that there would not be too many honourable senators in this place who had not been made aware of the difficulties that are being experienced in the coal industry. Those difficulties are exacerbated by State and Federal charges, one of which of course is the duty . I am sure that in the areas in which these difficulties are experienced the views that have been expressed not only by the management but also the workers concerned bear upon the decisions that are being taken by honourable senators and by groups within this Parliament. As I understand it, there is a general view that the duty should be removed. Whether or not it is replaced by something else is a matter for further consideration, but at this point I believe there is merit in the proposition that has been put forward by the Opposition. However, the point that has been made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, and by Senator Jack Evans is also valid; that is, that the Liberal- National coalition's policy was in existence, I think, prior to 1975. That policy proposes the removal of the duty. It has not been implemented, even when the Liberal-National coalition was in government. Therefore, I feel that the words 'as proposed by the policy of the Liberal/National Coalition' add nothing to the Opposition's amendment. The amendment states: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that, while the government's decision to remove the duty on blended coal is to be welcomed, the severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry and the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy warrant an immediate and total removal of this duty , as proposed by the policy of the Liberal/National Coalition'. If there is a problem with those last few words, why not remove them? We have the substantive request which would then be the substantive view of the Senate. We will have expressed our opinion. As I have said, most members of the Senate will have understood what is taking place in the coal industry. We will have expressed an opinion that the levy ought to be removed immediately. In order that the Opposition's amendment might be acceptable, I foreshadow an amendment in the following terms: That all words after 'duty' on the seventh line of the amendment be deleted. Such an amendment would maintain the thrust of the Opposition's amendment and would make it more acceptable to those who may wish to vote for the removal of the tax but not to tie it to the policy of the Liberal-National coalition. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Jack Evans's amendment to Senator Peter Rae's proposed amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Cook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. J. Crowley, R. A. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Mason, C. V. J. Evans, Gareth Primmer, C. G. Evans, Jack Ray, RobertForeman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. F. Reynolds, M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Ryan, S. M. Martin, K. M. Tate, M. C. Lajovic, M. E. Colston, M. A. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Jack Evans's amendment to Senator Peter Rae's proposed amendment) be inserted. the Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Hearn, J. M. Childs, B. K. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. McIntosh, G. D. Cook, P. F. S. Macklin, M. J. Crowley, R. A. Maguire, G. R. Elstob, R. C. Mason, C. V. J. Evans, Gareth Primmer, C. G. Evans, Jack Ray, RobertForeman, D. J. Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guifoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Walsh, P. A. Jessop, D. S. Reynolds, M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Ryan, S. M. Martin, K. J. Tate, M. C. Lajovic, M. E. Colston, M. A. Collard, S. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment (Senator Peter Rae's), as amended, agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time and agreed to without requests. The Bills. Bills reported without requests; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Bills be now read a third time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(8.47) —I hope it will be realised by all of those who are interested in the welfare of Australia that we have just seen a situation in which, with a combination of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, there has been a vote for more taxation or continued taxation of the coal industry in Australia as opposed to the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia coalition policy for the removal of the export duty which has been holding back the development of Australia's coal industry. I do not want it to be misunderstood by those who may have been confused by the variety of amendments that were moved that the effect was that the Democrats and the Australian Labor Party wanted to get together to ensure that there was a continuation of a form of taxation on the export of coal from Australia, which we believe should now be removed because of the deleterious effect it is having upon employment and Australia's competitive position-- Senator Gietzelt —This sounds like an election speech. Senator PETER RAE —I thank Senator Gietzelt. I am glad to know that he is still alive. I had begun to wonder. It was a good interjection and it showed great perspicacity. We have been subjected to election speeches in almost every answer that has been given by almost every Minister, except Senator Gietzelt, who does not get any questions other than dorothy dixers, which he organises and reads. Let me say that the Opposition believes that the time has come when we need to do a number of things in Australia, including making more effective and competitive our coal export industry and making more effective and efficient our Australian Customs Service. One of the things referred to in so many parts of the three Bills with which we are dealing is the Australian Customs Service. We believe there needs to be a determination to take all such measures as are necessary to protect Australia from the damaging effects of dumping, of improper transfer pricing and other unfair destabilising trading actions by other nations . This will involve a further upgrading of the role of the Australian Customs Service. We see that as necessary and highly desirable. We believe that not only is it necessary to take steps to ensure the maintenance of an efficient and professional Customs Service with an effective liaison with the police and other investigative and enforcement agencies but also that we need further to continue our review of the Service in the context of the Mahoney report on the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures to endeavour to improve the interrelationship for standards and quality testing purposes of government and authorised private sector laboratories to streamline and expedite Customs clearance of imported goods. Further reference to this aspect needs to be considered in relation to the whole question of Customs standards in Australia. We need the development of a more streamlined system of standards. We need to undertake a modernisation of the whole Customs Act to bring it more into line with current international and Australian commercial and trading practices, legal concepts and judicial systems. Concern has been expressed by sections of the community in relation to the claim that there is a significant incidence of misclassification of imported goods which has the effect of lowering the rate of duty. We believe that it is necessary to take steps to improve the checking procedures and policing of those requirements which are in force. We believe that it is necessary to continue to pay particular attention to the role of the Customs Service in relation to the prevention of the trafficking of drugs in Australia. That is becoming very significant in our community, making it very important to upgrade our Australian Customs Service in that regard. We also believe that the coastal surveillance role which has been downgraded by the present Government needs to be upgraded and made more efficient. We believe that a number of steps are necessary to assist Customs and the remainder of the enforcement agencies to ensure that drug trafficking and other breaches of laws relating to our coastal areas cannot take place with the impunity which appears to be the case. I relate that to the explanation given by the Foreign Minister ( Mr Hayden) that there was not a spy flight over East Timor but probably somebody just making an unlawful drug flight at the time. No further action appears to have been taken by the Government in relation to that. The Government appears to have had no interest in that matter. We do not believe that this is a tolerable situation. We believe that action has to be taken to make sure that this country is protected from unlawful flights into Australia and unlawful fishing expeditions which haul up large quantities of heroin and other drugs. I can only say that the Australian Customs Service is fighting a battle with an inadequate armoury at the moment. We would propose to make sure that its armoury is upgraded to enable it to better carry out the tasks it has to do. I say that appropriate to the variety of matters contained in the Customs Tariff Bills with which we are dealing. I thank the Senate for the opportunity of making those few comments. I complete my remarks by saying that I trust that people did note that it was the Australian Democrats who wanted to consider further taxing the coal industry. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(8.53) —I will not take up the time of the Senate also by making a second reading speech to the Customs Tariff Bills under the guise of a third reading speech, as has just happened. It is quite clear that we are in an election campaign environment. Senator Rae obviously does not understand the purport of the Australian Democrats amendment. Having lost the division, his attitude is vastly different from the attitude he usually displays when the Australian Democrats vote with his party. This apparently is going to be the pattern from here on; whichever way we vote we are going to get a third reading squeal from the party on whose side the Democrats have not voted. I make it quite clear that the Australian Democrats have not proposed a new tax . The amendment relating to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill simply asks the Government to have a look, in terms of the Liberal Party amendment, at the existing severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry. All of that is still there, including the reference to the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy. We are asking for a positive, constructive investigation, whereas the Liberals, at the end of their fatuous amendment, indicate that the Liberal Party has proposed the complete removal of the duty since 1976. But they did not do a damn thing about it in those eight years and now, shortly after being thrown out of government, they suddenly discover the virtue of that suggestion and want to impose it on the Government of the day. I would find some merit in Senator Rae's amendment if the Liberals had taken steps themselves in the eight years that they had it as part of their policy and were in government. I hope Senator Rae will accept that the Australian Democrats' amendment was in fact the constructive face of his own amendment. It was inserted to ensure that his amendment went through with a constructive edge to it, and was not an amendment along the lines originally proposed with the Democrats would have had to vote against. Now he has three-quarters of his amendment and a constructive amendment, in total, has been passed by the Senate. Senator Button —Mr President, might I ask that Senator Rae table the document from which he quoted at considerable length during his speech? The PRESIDENT —Senator Button, under the Standing Orders you would be required to move a motion that he table the document. Senator Button —I ask that he table it. Senator Peter Rae —What document do you mean? Senator Button —Relating to the Australian Customs Service. Senator Peter Rae —Certainly. It is the Liberal and National parties policy document on industry and commerce. It is a very good policy and I can commend it for reading. The PRESIDENT —I understand that Senator Peter Rae would have to seek leave to table the document if no motion is moved. Senator Peter Rae —The Minister asked whether I would table the document. I am perfectly happy to table it. If the Standing Orders preclude me from tabling it other than by seeking leave, I am quite happy to table a copy by seeking leave. It is a policy, the preparation of which I was personally involved in, and which was announced in August of this year as the policy on industry and commerce by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. I do ask that I be allowed to table a copy which does not have marks under the particular bits that I have found useful. I seek leave to table a copy of the policy. Leave granted. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.57) —I want to speak briefly on the third reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill because it is important that the record be put straight. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have recommended that a further tax be imposed upon the coal industry, because the proposition in the amendment put forward by the Opposition was that the tax be removed. We put forward that proposal for two very good reasons. We think that the need for that tax has passed and, furthermore, it applies to only one company out of the hundreds involved in the coal industry. It is quite incorrect for Senator Jack Evans, who knows nothing about the coal industry to claim that the Liberal Party proposed to remove this tax but, in his own words, did not do a damn thing about it in eight years. Apart from the fact that we were in government for seven years and not eight years, we did a lot about it. We reduced it from $6 to $4.50 and then to $3.50. The present level of return to the Government is $60m a year in rough terms. We almost halved it. In other words, one company would have been paying $ 120m. I think that is a pretty considerable reduction. We were moving in that direction and I speak only because of the gross misrepresentation of fact put by Senator Jack Evans. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.59) —in reply- Senator Rae said on several occasions that the time has come. It reminds me of what the walrus said. Of course it has been the walrus in terms of Liberal Party consistency on these matters. I make just one or two points. The Government granted Senator Peter Rae an extension of time in the course of the second reading debate. Therefore, it is somewhat extraordinary for a shadow Minister to speak on the third reading and to use that stage to unveil, for the first time, Liberal-Country Party policy on the Customs Service. Surely one might have expected to hear something on that score before this stage was reached. This is an extraordinary vehicle in which to make such an announcement. I am surprised that in the circumstances he took advantage of the third reading to embark on that course. I want to correct an erroneous and indeed untruthful statement made by Senator MacGibbon that the effect of this legislation is to impose a new tax on the coal industry. That is not the case at all. Senator MacGibbon —With respect, I said that it recommended the imposition. Senator BUTTON —Senator MacGibbon should read the Hansard report of the speech tomorrow and he will then see what he did say. The record on these matters speaks for itself and the matter was the subject of the second reading debate. The difficulties faced by the coal industry will not be solved by brandishing symbolic gestures. Indeed, Senator MacGibbon in his second reading speech, which was a little more thoughtful, did not suggest such a course. The Opposition's problem is that in the late 1970s and early 1980s it presided over an economy with rising inflation, rising unemployment and rising interest rates that all occurred at the same time. The Government is now in a vastly different situation in relation to these industries. We are confronted by falling indicators in respect of all the factors I have mentioned. I know it is a painful fact for the Opposition to have to acknowledge, but it is true. In those circumstances the previous Government refused to help the coal industry, in spite of many promises which had been made over the years. In 1981 Mr Howard, the then Treasurer, said: 'Now is not the time to phase out the coal industry levy'. I remind honourable senators of those facts. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a third time. Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.03) —My remarks will be particularly addressed to the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, whereas my colleague, Senator Baume, will be addressing his main argument to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. On that Bill I shall later make one or two remarks in the context of the social security legislation. The amendments in the social security Bill are basically machinery matters in connection with the recent Budget. They seek to increase the payments under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act as set down in the Budget, and are accepted by the Opposition without any particular comment. The second item that needs some further debate relates to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, which basically contains the funding arrangements for the Meals on Wheels program across Australia. I shall return to that matter in a few moments because there are one or two other matters I wish to deal with. The third matter that is of some interest is the conversion of the Anzac Hostel in Melbourne, which currently houses World War I veterans, the hostel having been made available to the Government by virtue of a gift by the Baillieu family in the First World War. It is a rather remarkable property and an historic landmark in the southern suburbs of Melbourne. The Government has moved to develop it as a site for the purposes of developing a domiciliary homes assistance program for the southern suburbs of Melbourne. This, I take it, is to be conducted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Consequently, I have a particular interest in that matter, having been a Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I commend the Government for its action in this regard. The legislative machinery itself is rather interesting in that the original gift was made by the Baillieu family under certain terms and conditions. Any variation requires an Act of Parliament. An alteration of the means by which the premises could be utilised could otherwise have been done more or less by administrative action by the Repatriation Commission. Accordingly, the legislation has the support of the Opposition. While talking about the Anzac Hostel I point out that it is timely that the Government has seen fit to develop a domiciliary home service in the southern part of Melbourne because there can be no doubt that there will be continuing pressure on nursing homes, hostels and homes of all descriptions for the aged and disabled in Victoria. This stems very largely from actions taken by this Government in its Medicare program which has left much confusion in the public mind as to how nursing homes are to be funded. Since this Government came to power there has been a very severe restriction on the number of nursing home beds that have been approved. The second reason for it is the general action of the State Cain Labor Government in Victoria which somehow has caused a situation in which approximately 8,000 people are waiting for elective surgery within the public hospital system in that State. It is a matter of very great concern, particularly to elderly folk and people occupying aged and disabled people's homes in Victoria, that even though Medicare was introduced with such fanfare earlier this year by this Hawke Labor Government they can obtain no guarantee from the Federal Government that they will be able to obtain a public hospital bed in Victoria in a case of need. I believe Senator Baume will speak at greater length and authority on that matter, but I have been advised that many aged people who would otherwise have considered themselves to be well and truly covered by Medicare have now found that that cover is worthless. Consequently, they have to buy private health insurance to ensure that they can get private hospital beds to receive treatment when they need it. That is the kind of farce that has developed in Victoria and in other parts of Australia because of the bungling of this Government in the course of the introduction of Medicare and the lack of co-ordination in respect of State government action, particularly with the public hospitals in Victoria, as well as a lack of co-ordination in developing nursing home and aged persons accommodation since this Government came to power. There have been no approvals of any note and no program has been implemented by this Government. Certainly very little action has been taken to alleviate this position. This question of how to look after people who as they enter old age are in this rather difficult situation of needing accommodation of a specialist kind is perhaps the greatest challenge that this Government or any government needs to face. It is significant that this Government has failed to meet that challenge since coming to office. The real point that has to be made is that there needs to be a multi-pronged approach to the development of alternative policies for the care of the aged. Indeed, we are pleased to see that the Government has, by virtue of this legislation, decided on one direction; that is, the better use of the Anzac hostel. We also note that the Government has provided some funds, although terribly inadequate, in this year's Budget for the development of a new home and community care program. We support all of those moves. The relevance of this legislation is brought to mind when we talk about an increase in the subsidy or the amount provided by the Government for the Meals on Wheels program. Clearly, one way of reducing the future costs to any government of the problem of the aged is encouraging voluntary community activity as much as possible. Certainly, the Liberal and National parties support that kind of approach. The Meals on Wheels programs have been very successful in many ways and have been implemented right across Australia. We pay credit to those people who have taken such an active part in promoting and developing those programs. It was a far-sighted Government that first instituted the subsidies for Meals on Wheels, as it certainly takes a great load from the cost of the hospital system and from the provision of other types of accommodation throughout the Australian community. But I think we should make sure that we understand the commitment being undertaken and the personal and community cost being borne by those people who provide the Meals on Wheels program. I am rather indebted to my colleague Mr Don Cameron, the very active Liberal member for Moreton in Queensland, who conducted a survey amongst voluntary organisations in his own area and determined that-- Senator Peter Baume —It was a significant exercise. Senator MESSNER —It was a very significant exercise. He has found that most Meals on Wheels programs are run by volunteers, that most of the people who have been engaged in these programs have been helping for at least five years and that most of these people deliver 10 to 20 meals a day each. He has also discovered that many of the people who are actually providing the services are relatively advanced in age. In fact, he has found that the majority of males engaged in this activity are over 60 years of age and that the majority of females are over 45. He has determined that most of these people are on fixed incomes of one kind or another through superannuation or through a pension. Most are not in receipt of a salary and most are in widowhood. Having examined that short piece of information, I think the Meals on Wheels programs perform a very valuable service in the community but their operation needs a great deal of support in light of the fact that many people engaged in them sacrifice a great deal, are becoming more and more aged themselves and may not be able to carry on with the sort of work load that is involved unless there is government support of a more substantial kind. We are talking, too, about the costs which individuals bear in the way of petrol for the motor cars in which they run around and do these things. It is interesting to note that Mr Cameron found that only 30 per cent of volunteers accept any kind of petrol subsidy from the Meals of Wheels organisation, which speaks volumes for their commitment to looking after the aged in this way. This benefit translates right through to the taxpayers generally in that it is obvious that the Government and the taxpayer are saved an enormous cost as a result of this very significant sacrifice. No one can deny that that program is particularly valuable. We look to the Government continuing its commitment to the Meals of Wheels program. We hope that the increases which are brought about by virtue of this legislation will eventually be reconsidered from time to time. Certainly under a Liberal-National Party government increases would be considered from time to time. I think that the context of those remarks brings us to the very important understanding that this Government has not faced up to its real responsibilities in the area of the aged. We have seen the introduction of the assets test; we have seen the introduction of the lump sum superannuation tax; we have seen the introduction of the over-70s income test. The Government's claims that it is trying to restrict the future growth of social security expenditure have all had one thing in common-that is, they seek to deny people the opportunity of looking after themselves and reduce their capacity to look after themselves in their old age. On the other hand, as we have observed, the Government has failed to meet the challenge-or has met it only to a very minor extent since it came to office- of the real needs of the frail aged, those who are reaching very advanced age, those who are suffering from senility and those with Alzheimer's disease. It has failed to meet its obligations in this area. The real challenge of looking after the aged lies in that area, and that problem is with us now. The Government is seeking to take care of problems which may occur many decades into the future. They are far less of a challenge in terms of the immediate situation than the ones which it should be reaching for and to which it should be seeking a solution at this stage. We see no motivation to assist the aged in any significant and meaningful way by the programs that have been announced by this Government in recent months. We have seen the introduction of the home and community care program, but we have seen no commitment of money, other than a minor amount of $15m in the current financial year. Although it is described as having a total commitment over three years of $300m, that amount is by no means guaranteed. We have had no indication of what amounts in future Budgets will be. The Government is not prepared to give us firm commitments as to what sum will be included in the 1985-86 Budget or in the years beyond that. Of course, that is the test; that is the obligation which it would not like to see imposed upon it. Of course, we would prefer to have a reconsideration of that matter in the event of our winning the election on 1 December. Consequently, we are perhaps looking to the day when we might be able more adequately to consider all the details of the matter immediately thereafter. Finally, I say that the Government has failed to meet the real challenges in the area of the aged and has not turned its attention to the real considerations of people in need in this community. That has been said time and again not only by members of the Opposition but also significantly by people in the Australian Council of Social Service and others who are in the front line, are at the coalface, in dealing with the problems of the needy. For that reason we believe that the Government has its boot on the wrong foot and, by the introduction of the assets test and such measures, is failing to meet that challenge and is headed entirely in the wrong direction. The Opposition advocates the principle that people should be encouraged to look after themselves as much as possible in their old age. That means a group of policies which are co-ordinated and aimed at developing people's opportunities, to provide incentives for them during their working lives to save for their retirements. The Government's approach is entirely the opposite. It is putting a penalty on thrift through the various measures that it has introduced so that people will be less able to look after themselves in their retirement. Of course, that is the major distinction between the Government and the Opposition-a distinction that we will be seeking to bring to the people's attention in the course of the forthcoming election campaign. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(9.21) —This evening we are debating amendments to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. I would like to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of the amendments to the health legislation. Those aspects are: The introduction of changes to what has become known as the 35-day rule and the introduction also of a scheme whereby respite beds will be made available in nursing homes. It was extremely interesting to hear Senator Messner refer to his Party's philosophy of encouraging people to care for themselves in their old age. But as far as I could hear the only positive measure that he was advocating was an increase in the number of nursing home beds, having criticised the Government trenchantly for holding down the increase in the number of beds over the past 18 months. It is very clear to those of us who have looked closely at the industry and at the need for nursing home beds and other care for the aged that simply increasing beds is certainly not the way to deal with the needs of the aged. For example, Senator Messner's references to Meals on Wheels, and his emphasis on the fact that many people volunteering their time and energies to providing Meals on Wheels are people of, shall we say, mature years, points up the fact that the vast majority of aged people are quite fit-in very many cases very fit- and that only 7 per cent of those over 70 in Australia currently are in institutionalised care. It is also evident that the type of care that many of those people in institutionalised care are receiving is not appropriate to their needs. In many cases nursing home attention is not what they need but some other sort of supported accommodation. I felt that his remark about the age of women involved in Meals on Wheels was rather gratuitous. His method of coming to those conclusions rather intrigued me. As somebody who has had a very close association with Meals on Wheels, being one of the volunteers for some years, I assure him that a fairly high proportion of those who contribute their time and their efforts are of less than mature years. The legislation before us tonight includes amendments to what has become known as the 35-day rule. This has replaced the old 60-day rule which required that patients staying in private hospitals for a period longer than the specified period should be certified as being in need of acute care to continue to be eligible for health insurance past that time. It was evident towards the end of the 1970s and the early 1980s that that rule was being breached quite flagrantly in many cases. Some publicity was given to the fact that patients were being recruited, signed up into private insurance companies and, as soon as they became eligible, admitted, not to nursing homes, but to private hospitals, where they stayed in some cases for months and even years. These patients were 'ping- ponged'-I believe that was the expression-between a range of hospitals. They were sent for a few days here, a few weeks there and a month or so somewhere else. In many cases the diagnosis was the sort of thing that one would expect of a reasonably fit elderly person-a little back pain, poor eyesight, diabetes, a bit of congestive cardiac failure, maybe a nervous disorder. Insurance companies and the Government were paying out vast amounts of money to keep these individuals, comfortably I hope, in private hospitals where they had no need to be. We have already changed that rule to say that after 35 days an individual who needs to stay in that environment must be certified as in need of acute care. These amendments modify that requirement to the point where the individual who may need to be moved perhaps from acute care into a chronic care nursing home or some other accommodation is protected much better than was the case originally. There has been a great deal of exaggeration about the difficulties that this has created. But it certainly is a fact that in some States nursing home accommodation is at a premium and there may in fact be difficulty in finding alternative accommodation for the individual who cannot be certified genuinely as in need of continued acute care and therefore continue to be eligible for medical insurance. The procedures, of course, have been improved and expedited. I emphasise that throughout this exercise the welfare of the patient is paramount and that the doctor must take responsibility for this certification in a way that perhaps has not been so evident in some cases in the past. In the period to which I referred earlier certificates were not signed by doctors and clerical staff and nurses were expected to take this responsibility. The matter certainly was completely out of hand for a while. The procedures have been improved and expedited specifically to reduce hardship in case of review to the acute care advisory committee in each State. The other issue I wish to address is the one that now allows for nursing home benefits to be paid to individuals who wish, for some reason or other, to be temporarily absent from a nursing home. This will be of great advantage to two quite clear groups of people. First of all it will benefit the person who wishes to leave the nursing home for a night or two or perhaps a week or two and who until now had to reimburse the nursing home for the Federal benefit which would not be paid for the period of absence. The other group that will be at a great advantage is those patients and their carers who may take advantage of those otherwise empty beds in nursing homes for a few days or weeks in the course of a 12-month period. The reasons for which people may wish to be temporarily absent from nursing homes are many and varied. Probably the most common ones would be hospitalisation for a short period or perhaps to take a vacation for a special family occasion. We have heard of one individual who was absent from a nursing home in order to take a world trip. However, in that instance questions might have been asked whether nursing home accommodation was appropriate for that individual. Previously, and certainly this still is the case- nursing homes had an incentive to maintain a very high bed occupancy rate. This is because high bed occupancy in the case of private enterprise nursing homes obviously is highly desirable in terms of viability. These amendments allow for an agreement to be reached between the nursing home proprietor and the patient or the representative of the patient and set out the obligations of both parties in the event of the patient leaving the nursing home temporarily for one reason or another such as those I have explained. Instead of as previously the patient being required to pay both the patient contribution and the benefit, which can vary from $23.40 a day in Western Australia to $45.15 a day in Victoria, the amendments allow that the patient may be elsewhere for a total of 28 days in a year and the Commonwealth will continue to pay the benefit for that time. In addition to this totally reasonable and humane initiative, beds thus vacated may now be made available for the provision of respite care, a term which refers to short periods, days or perhaps weeks, during which disabled or frail aged people usually cared for at home may be admitted to a nursing home for any one or a range of reasons. The most common of these reasons is to give the carers a rest from what is often a labour of love but is demanding of time and energy and can be emotionally taxing as well. Other reasons for temporary admission, or remission for the carer, may be the short term medical needs of the patient, the medical needs of the carer certainly, or short term intensive periods of nursing where an individual's condition has changed over a period. The availability of such respite beds has been very low until now with only deficit funded nursing homes being in a position to reserve beds for such use, and only a few of them having actually done so. This new arrangement will add to the comfort and peace of mind of very many patients, not just those in deficit funded institutions but also those in private enterprise nursing homes and will also add to the well- being of the carers and, I venture to say, the proprietors of nursing homes who in many cases will be very glad to be able to provide this extra community assistance and service. It is a highly commendable development. The only costs for the temporary patient will be the usual patient contribution of 87.5 per cent of pension, plus, in private enterprise nursing homes, any difference between the benefit paid by the Government and the full fee. The same arrangements will apply to patients and those seeking respite in deficit funded homes and those who are the responsibility of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. From my observations, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is probably in an excellent position to implement this very quickly and very efficiently, in view of the excellent assessment procedures that it already has operating. There is a guarantee that there will be thorough discussions between the Government and the nursing home industry and those who speak on behalf of patients prior to the introduction of this scheme. In order to optimise the advantages it would seem reasonable to me to administer the scheme on a regional basis from a central registry which could quickly identify beds which are vacant or about to become vacant and match them to those in need of respite care. Australia is relatively well supplied with nursing home beds per capita of our aged population, but their distribution is uneven and their utilisation is far from effective. This new program is a very welcome step. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.34) —The Senate is discussing in cognate debate two Bills. Senator Giles confined herself, as I will, to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 which deals, amongst other things, with the problems which are raised by the 35-day rule and to which previous speakers have directed some of their remarks. This 35-day rule applies to the rights of people who go to hospital with acute illnesses to continue to receive free hospital care. People who may have been Medicare levy payers and who think that entitles them to a free hospital bed should understand-and this Bill makes it clear-that there is no such entitlement and that what they are entitled to, if they are acutely ill, is a bed for 35 days only. That is what Medicare has offered. After that time the pensioners or the aged persons may well be faced with the withdrawal of a large part of their incomes or pensions because of the rules which have been introduced as part of the Medicare package and the way in which it is being administered. Senator Giles speech a moment ago was punitive, uncaring and displayed neither compassion nor understanding of the problems facing the aged, especially the people in hospitals. I indicate that the Opposition is dissatisfied with the approach the Government has taken in relation to this problem raised by the 35-day rule. Accordingly I move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate- (a) is of the opinion that the Bill does not deal adequately with the serious problems faced by the long term sick and elderly caused by the Medicare 35 day rule; and (b) calls on the Government to withdraw the 35 day rule until proper arrangements have been made to care for patients affected by the rule'. It is quite irrelevant for Senator Giles to regale the Senate with stories of people she has heard of who are wealthy and who walk out of nursing homes to take trips. We are talking about people who are admitted to hospital ill and who , at the end of 35 days, after an acute illness, suddenly find that they are faced with one of the gifts of the Australian Labor Party, that is, administrative procedures which may remove at a stroke their right to continue to receive the free hospitalisation which was promised to them as part of the Medicare package. They cannot continue to receive it. That raises several problems. The first is that not enough nursing home beds are available when they are needed for people who might be classified as nursing home patients. That is a fact around Australia. Senator Giles and the Labor Party may not think more beds are needed. In fact, the Labor Party has oversighted the imposition of a virtual freeze on the establishment of more nursing home beds over the last 18 months, but aged Australians and their families know better. They know, and I know when I have gone to try to help them , that it is very difficult to find a nursing home bed. It may be fine in theory to say that at some stage after 35 days a bureaucrat may decide that someone is no longer sick enough for hospital and now requires a nursing home bed, but to put that scheme into effect is possible only if the nursing home beds are there for the patient. Senator Crowley —Don't keep shouting. We know the truth. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Crowley knows as well as anyone that the fallacy of the scheme is that the nursing home beds are not available. Aged Australians are caught in a squeeze by bureaucratic procedures which say that no longer can they enjoy the benefits of an acute hospital and that, by the way, there is nowhere else for them to go and that is just bad luck. Senator Giles at least had the grace to admit that there are problems in some of the States with shortages of nursing home places. We are talking about people who have been acutely ill. We are talking about a situation where a person comes in having had a stroke or a cerebro-vascular accident for some reason and at the end of 35 days may have recovered partially but is not yet completely well and needs continuing rehabilitation and care in some unit. The patient may find that the doctor, because the guidelines are not well enough defined, may not know whether or not that certificate can be signed. So the first problem is that not enough nursing home beds are available to make this scheme operate properly. The Australian Labor Party has not made it easy for new nursing home beds to be established. Until they are, it is simply not right to move down this track of the 35-day rule with the hardship which it causes. The second problem which goes with the 35-day rule is that of the certificates which must be signed by the doctors, which are known as section 3B certificates. Section 3B is a section of the Health Insurance Act 1973 which provides that a certificate shall be signed by a doctor if a patient is to continue receiving full acute care benefits in a private or a public hospital. If a person has been in an acute care bed in a hospital for 35 days, the doctor must sign a certificate under that section to certify that the patient should continue to require acute care. But under the arrangements that were in place before Medicare came into operation on 1 February there were more generous and more practical arrangements. The arrangements under the previous Government were different. A section 3B certificate-the one we have been talking about-could be issued under four circumstances, not one. The first circumstance was that the patient was in need of acute care. The second was that the patient may be in need of professional attention for an acute phase of his or her condition. The third was that there may be a need for active rehabilitation. The fourth was that there may be a need for continued management for medical reasons as an in- patient. Four reasons were provided under which patients could continue to qualify for benefits, but the Australian Labor Party has now restricted this to one reason-a continuing need for acute care. The Government has made it more difficult for certificates to be obtained as well as shortening the period before which a certificate is needed from the 60 days which operated when we were in government to 35 days. One hardship after another is being piled upon aged Australians and we are receiving case history after case history of patients, many of whom have had strokes, some of whom have died within a couple of weeks of being refused certificates-- Senator Chaney —What happens to these people? Senator PETER BAUME —These people go into some sort of limbo. They are not able to continue to receive the benefits of being in an acute care bed in a public hospital and sometimes they cannot find a nursing home bed. That is what we are objecting to. The doctor used to have four circumstances under which he could sign a section 3B certificate. Of course he did not have to sign the certificate until the sixtieth day of hospitalisation and, as honourable senators will realise, not a lot of patients needed 60 days in hospital. However, the only ground on which a 3B certificate can now be signed, under Labor, is when the doctor is willing to certify that the patient is in need of acute care. The other conditions which were previously available have been removed, to the detriment of aged Australians and to the detriment of their right to care. This puts pressure on patients and their families and on the already inadequate system of nursing home provision. There is real hardship there and it is quite clear now that Medicare does not provide what the people were led to expect that it would provide. It does not provide a right to a free bed in a public hospital as that right has now been limited to 35 days of care-a right to 35 days only. If Senator Giles wants to say that in her view the welfare of the patient is paramount, she and the Australian Labor Party are choosing strange ways to show that concern or that care. There is great pressure on doctors now because since Medicare came in one of the things which Labor has done is to make a doctor who might be judged as making a false statement in relation to these certificates liable to a fine of $ 10,000 or five years in gaol. I do not for one moment countenance any false certification. If any of the stories which Senator Giles told were correct and if there were cases of false certification I would want those people punished appropriately because certificates have to be able to stand. But the severe penalties which have been imposed and the limitation of the conditions under which doctors can sign have now made many doctors uncertain about what they should do about those patients who come into the grey areas in relation to this question of continuing need for acute care. There are two other problems with the way section 3B certificates operate currently. Firstly, they can be revoked retrospectively. This is an interesting contrast to the fact that they cannot be given retrospectively. They must be postdated from between nought and seven days and, if this legislation is passed, between nought and 14 days before they come into effect. Secondly, problems do arise where a doctor or a hospital is unsure whether a patient genuinely needs a section 3B certificate or continued hospital treatment. As I have said, with the more restrictive conditions this uncertainty is greater than it used to be. If the doctor is faced with that situation either the patient may be deprived of the care to which he should be entitled or the doctor may be submitting herself or himself to the risks of very great penalty. We find that a patient has the right to only 35 days of hospital benefits whether he is a Medicare levy payer or whether he carries private health insurance. That is a lesser right than that which existed under the Fraser Government when a full 60 days of hospital benefits were available. The 35-day limit applies unless the 3B certificate is issued and that, as I have said, can be done-if this legislation takes effect-14 days in advance. We have had several changes to this provision. We have had the change from 60 to 35 days of hospital benefits and we now have fewer reasons for a doctor to sign a 3B certificate. I ask the Senate: What happens on the thirty-sixth day? What happens to the patient who has had a stroke, who is not well, who cannot go home and look after himself, who cannot find a nursing home bed, for whom the doctor cannot certify he needs continuing acute care but for whom he would have been able to certify this had he been in one of the other circumstances for which the Fraser Government provided? What happens on the thirty-sixth day in hospital? A pensioner may find that he is being charged $12.40 each day that he remains in a public hospital. He may find, having thought he was covered under Medicare, that at the end of 35 days, on the thirty-sixth day, 87 1/2 per cent of his pension is withdrawn. Alternatively, if the patient is in a private hospital on the thirty-sixth day there may be charges of anything up to $50 a day or whatever it might cost. I think Senator Giles gave us some figures which indicated the variation from State to State. The patient will have to find very large amounts of money from his own pocket. In this legislation and in the changes which the Labor party has brought in we have seen a diminution of the rights which aged Australians have enjoyed. We have seen a diminution in their rights to hospital care when they become ill. We have seen diminution in their right to continuing hospital care until they are well and all of this is taking place at a time when the Labor Government has made it more difficult for alternative accommodation for nursing homes to be established. Many aged Australians understand what has happened. They are very angry. They are aware of what has been going on. We urge the Government, in the interests of humanity, to make sure that enough nursing home beds are available. Until they are available we urge the Government, in the terms of our amendment, to restore some humanity to government and to get rid of the 35-day rule until it can be administered without hardship or harm to the very people who are most vulnerable and most in need of help. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(9.50) —I have listened to Senator Baume with great interest. If I understand him correctly, I presume that the Liberal Party will go to the electorate in the coming weeks saying that one of its policies is to increase the number of nursing home beds. I assume that the Liberal Party will go to the electorate of Australia saying: 'We want more nursing home beds because there are all these people on the 35-day rule all around the country who are desperately going to need these beds'. I ask Opposition senators how they think that policy will go down with the electorate. It will make a great policy. I am sure that they will draw in a significant number of votes with it. But next I would ask them: How will you pay for these beds? I thought the Opposition did not believe in increasing taxes. I suppose the money for this will come from the same source as everything else that the Liberals promise-magic. They want beds and they want them all provided for. I will be interested to hear how Senator Baume manages on the campaign trail. Senator Baume's arguments are curious. He said in the course of the debate that previously people were allowed 60 days, but this provision was rarely used. As Senator Zakharov and I interjected at the time, that is quite so. That is entirely the Government's point-60 days is a period that is almost never needed on any estimate, and after broad consultation with the medical and nursing professions, 35 days was judged to be more than an adequate assessment of the time in which most people recovered from acute illness. If people have not recovered and if they are in need of continuing acute care, then all that has to happen is that the medical person in charge of the patient fills out the form requiring a continuation of care. Somehow or other, Senator Baume has the bureaucrats in there doing all sorts of terrible things to elderly patients who may or may not be still acute patients. In fact, as the legislation quite clearly spells out and as the Minister has clearly spelled out, this is a medical professional decision. It is not a bureaucratic decision. There are bureaucratic guidelines, if one wishes to call them bureaucratic. There are clear guidelines under which the medical profession makes a professional decision. Senator Walters —You do not understand. Senator CROWLEY —If Senator Walters suggests once again that I do not understand I might really begin to wonder whether she has a brain at all. I have a very good understanding of what Senator Baume said. The medical profession is well able, in exercising its professional judgment, to decide what is an acute need and what is not. It may well be understood by most doctors that continuing need for rehabilitation and continuing inability to go elsewhere could well be classified as continuing need for acute care. Senator Crichton-Browne —Who do you blame so far, the doctors or the bureaucrats ? Senator CROWLEY —I do not lay blame anywhere. I do not know why Senator Crichton -Browne wants to judge and blame anybody. We are addressing a proposed change in legislation to deal with a very reasonable proposal. As Senator Baume said, 60 days was never needed and 35 days has been judged by the medical profession and all other people involved in the consultations as being adequate. I do not see why the Opposition should get so upset by a reasonable decision. Senator Baume then said that poor people did not have beds to go to. The professional decision about acute care has nothing to do with whether or not there are sufficient beds. That is a separate issue. Indeed, it may be a pressure on people, but it is a separate issue from a professional judgment about whether or not continuing acute care is needed. I think that Opposition senators should address these questions as separate instead of furphying and confusing both themselves and anybody who is listening by mixing the two together. As Senator Giles said, there is an insufficient supply of beds in some areas and an inappropriate distribution of nursing home beds. But I ask Opposition senators whether they really intend to go to the people of Australia saying that they will give them more nursing home beds? Or are they also in the business of economic rationalisation and appreciation that we do not need more nursing home beds, but better placed and better distributed beds, better rehabilitation services and better domiciliary care services? I think that Senator Baume's argument could be shot down in flames, principally because he confuses two issues. One is about bed distribution and one is a medical professional decision about acute medical treatment. Whilst they clearly have a close relationship to each other, they are not decisions that intermingle with each other. Senator Peter Baume —There is not much compassion in that approach. Senator CROWLEY —It has nothing to do with compassion, Senator. Senator Peter Baume —I am sure that your approach does not; that is right. Senator CROWLEY —I have spent a lot of time in this area and I do not find the measure of my compassion judged on whether or not I can refute a silly Liberal argument, but it might be quite compassionate to voters, if they are listening, to decide that facts help them. That would be very compassionate, instead of the furphies that the honourable senator was floating. I wanted not to address that issue, but I was tempted by Senator Baume's comments to make those remarks before moving to the only point that I wish to address in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 that is being debated cognately with the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. A number of the points that are to be addressed by the Health Legislation Amendment Bill have been covered fairly adequately. I wish to make a few comments about the proposed amendments addressing epidemiological studies. The other parts of the Bill have been addressed by some and will be addressed further and, no doubt, summed up by the Minister. In the Senate the other day I raised by way of a question to the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) concerns that I have and that I have had brought to me about restrictions to epidemiological studies under the proposed privacy legislation. That legislation is not due to be introduced this session but will be introduced in the autumn session next year. The proposed privacy legislation had drawn considerable support from the Australian Law Reform Commission and had caused considerable concern amongst colleagues of mine and others who are in the business of epidemiological scientific research. The privacy proposals had suggested that no epidemiological research could use records without permission from the persons listed in those records. This, of course, was prospectively enormously restrictive for researchers. The task of seeking permission for use of records from patients concerned would very much hamper any research, I think to the point of effectively preventing adequate research in very many areas. Again, such proposals under the privacy legislation did not address the difficulties of seeking permission from persons deceased. I am in no way flippant about that; but the privacy legislation did not address those sorts of difficulties. Much research addresses such information as is contained in records. For example, an area in which I have had an interest is studies in the occupational health area looking at past records of any and how many deaths, or any association between the work situation and the death, and the mortality and/or morbidity of people in a certain work situation-for example, in asbestos mines. It is vitally important that adequate epidemiological research can address those records, but the research is inordinately hampered by the requirement that permission be obtained from every person listed in those records. Any good researcher will, where possible, seek that permission; but to have it as a requirement-that is, that every person whose records are to be used be approached and that permission be given-would be unduly restrictive on that research. There are hospital records throughout the country that can very usefully provide researchers with essential information in the cause of adequate medical research. There are records of early childhood development and very many other series of records. To seek permission of the people listed in those records, particularly if one is doing longitudinal research studies, would be almost impossible. I suggest, therefore, that the people involved in shaping the privacy legislation would be well advised to look thoroughly at the amendments of the Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) Act contained in this health legislation, particularly the previous health legislation but including these amendments, because this health legislation provides for confidentiality. It ensures that no information from those records can be used that would indicate the identity of any person listed in them, but that requirement of confidentiality then enables very thorough and comprehensive epidemiological research to be undertaken and records to be comprehensively used. This Bill will make it quite clear that the legislation covers deceased persons, so that records pertaining to dead people, whatever the cause of death, are also covered under this epidemiological amendment. The amendment to the legislation is very useful, particularly as many of the studies sometimes require adequate research into the records of people now deceased. The amendment makes quite clear that when epidemiological research refers to 'persons' or 'people', it refers to the affairs of deceased persons as well as to the living. I simply suggest for the record that this is a very useful amendment. It is very precise in the clarifications it introduces. I think it would be of great benefit for the proposers of privacy legislation to look at this legislation under the health area for further help in framing the epidemiological research proposals under the Attorney-General's Department. I commend the Bills. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.01) —This evening we are debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). Like many other speakers, I will confine my comments to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. The main problem the Opposition sees in this Bill is, as Senator Peter Baume said earlier, with the 35-day rule. I will explain to the Senate the 35-day rule. Senator Crowley obviously understands so little about it that she informed us tonight that there are bureaucratic guidelines associated with acute care. She has so little knowledge of the matter that she is completely unaware that a report came down which was very critical of the Department of Health because there are no guidelines, but I will come to that later. The 35-day rule relates to a certificate that must be signed by a doctor if a patient is to continue to receive a full acute care benefit in either a public or a private hospital. So we have the situation whereby a patient who has been taken to hospital for some illness must have a doctor's certificate after 35 days saying that he needs acute care in the hospital or he must be discharged, otherwise he will be charged for full hospital care. As Senator Baume indicated earlier, under our Government a patient could receive acute care in hospital for 60 days after which time the doctor had the discretion of signing the certificate that the patient needed to remain in hospital for longer under four different headings. The first was acute care; the second was an acute phase of a patient's condition; the third was continued management for medical reasons as an in-patient; and the fourth was acute rehabilitation. The doctor had the flexibility of being able to say that a patient could stay in hospital for longer than 60 days for any one of those reasons. Under the new legislation the doctor has one area only in which he can do so. After 35 days-only 35 days-the doctor must sign the certificate and he is allowed only to take acute care into consideration. As I indicated a little earlier, Senator Crowley said by way of interjection to Senator Baume when he said that doctors had great difficulty in assessing what acute care was that they should go back to medical school to find out. I believe Senator Crowley is a doctor. Obviously she has not given this matter any thought at all. A report entitled 'Report on Task Force Established to Review Private Hospital Categorisation Arrangements' was put down in the Senate a little while ago. In that report under the heading 'General Observations' the Task Force calls for . . . clarification from the Acute Care Advisory Committees through the Department of Health to the health funds, as to the meaning of 'acute care'. This Task Force, set up by the Government, has come forward with a recommendation that there should be guidelines. Yet we heard tonight from Senator Crowley that there are already bureaucratic guidelines. That is absolute rubbish. Senator Crowley should have done her homework. She should know-I am sure the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) knows- Senator Grimes —Senator-- Senator WALTERS —I ask the Minister to allow me to make my speech. Senator Grimes —May I just ask a question? Senator WALTERS —If the Minister does not know he should go and find out. We heard Senator Crowley say that doctors should go back to medical school if they do not understand what 'acute care' is. We heard her say that there are bureaucratic guidelines which define this term. We have been told that it is very simple; yet we have the Government's own Task Force calling for: . . . clarification from the Acute Care Advisory Committees through the Department of Health to the health funds, as to the meaning of 'acute care'. Under the previous Government we had some flexibility. Under this Government there are no guidelines. There is nothing to define 'acute care'. If a doctor is wrong, what then? If a doctor is wrong he could be fined $10,000 or face five years in gaol. What doctor will run the risk of a $10,000 fine or five years in gaol because he is unaware of any guidelines-because there are none-which would tell him what acute care is? Let us have a look at the type of patients liable to suffer from this 35-day proposal. Senator Crowley told us tonight that she has compassion. She has compassion but she has not done her homework on the legislation. The Senate seems full of doctors tonight. They ought to realise that under the existing legislation psychiatric patients can be classed as being in the acute phase but when they pass from that phase they can be classed under the acute rehabilitation phase or under the continued management for medical reasons phase . Those are the three classifications which previously enabled doctors to extend a patient's stay. So a psychiatric patient who passed from the acute phase could have stayed in hospital because he was in need of acute rehabilitation or continued management for medical reasons. Let us have a look at the case to which Senator Peter Baume referred, of a patient who has suffered a stroke. After 35 days in hospital, under this Government's proposal, that patient must be tossed out of the hospital or pay for his treatment out of his own pocket if a nursing home bed cannot be found for him. Doctors know that under the old scheme after suffering a stroke a patient passes from being classified as needing acute treatment to being treated as an in-patient needing continued management for medical reasons. In the new scheme there is no allowance for that stage and a doctor must tell his patient that he must leave. But we do not have the nursing home beds to cater for such patients. Senator Giles said tonight: 'Yes, there are States where no nursing home beds are available but we do not know what happens to the patient in that situation'. Let us have a look at the case of a surgical patient who may have been admitted to hospital for some major operation but who has also developed medical complications. That patient, once past the acute phase, could develop all sorts of medical complications and would perhaps need rehabilitation or continued management for medical reasons, both of which classifications no longer come under the present legislation relating to the 35-day rule, because the 35-day rule accounts only for acute care. Senator Grimes —That is dreadful. You are a disgrace. Senator WALTERS —It does not matter how much the Minister in this place blusters and goes on about the matter, saying that I am a disgrace. The fact is that the Government's own report came down with recommendations that guidelines should be issued to explain to the funds and the doctors what 'acute care' means. As Senator Grimes says, obviously acute care is in the eye of the beholder. Many things are covered by the expression. What about terminally ill patients, once they have passed the acute care stage? Patients have been taken out of hospital because they have not been able to have the acute care certificate legitimately- Senator Grimes —Because the doctor is unwilling to sign the certificate. Senator WALTERS —'Because the doctor is unwilling to sign the certificate', says Senator Grimes. What utter rot. It is because there are no guidelines that say that the doctor has enough flexibility to say that the- Senator Grimes —Because the doctor is playing politics with a dying patient; it is a disgrace and you know it is a disgrace. Senator WALTERS —For Senator Grimes to come into this place and say that a doctor will not sign the certificate and allow a patient to die because he is being political is a disgrace and a continuation of the doctor bashing that has been engaged in by the Australian Labor Party for- Senator Grimes —You are now lying deliberately. Senator WALTERS —We will see. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes will withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —I will withdraw the remark but the honourable senator is quite deliberately lying and she knows it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, you must withdraw the remark without conditions. Senator Grimes —I will withdraw it. Senator WALTERS —We will see what Hansard has to say tomorrow morning. On a previous occasion in this place when Senator Grimes said I was lying the next day I explained exactly what happened, and that was recorded in Hansard. Senator Grimes —You did not. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes apologised to me in his room- Senator Grimes —I did not. Senator WALTERS —But he did not apologise to me in this chamber. Senator Grimes —I did not apologise to you under any circumstances, ever. Senator WALTERS —He apologised to me and said: 'Did I really say that?'. Senator Grimes —You are a disgraceful and outrageous old witch. Senator WALTERS —When I answered, 'Yes' in his room, he said to me: 'Oh, I am sorry'. Senator Grimes —I did not. Senator WALTERS —But in this Senate chamber he has not apologised. Senator Grimes —I did not. Senator WALTERS —It is time he did. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Grimes to cease interjecting. Senator Grimes —I have never apologised to you and I will not in future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, you must cease interjecting. Senator Walters has the call. Senator WALTERS —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. We will see what Hansard says tomorrow. Senator Grimes said that the doctors refused to sign the certificates for political reasons only. But I have said that a patient has left a home and died. That is the interjection the Minister made when I made that claim. If a pensioner is in hospital, perhaps after having had a stroke, after 35 days if no acute care is being undertaken the doctor must decide whether to sign a certificate. If the doctor is unable to sign a certificate saying that acute care is to be undertaken, that pensioner is up for $12.40 a day-$86.80 a week. A patient who has had a stroke could be in the home for a month. The cost would be $347.20 a month. Yet we are told that Medicare is wonderful, that Medicare will look after everyone and that is is good for patients and for pensioners. We have been told that the one per cent levy for Medicare will give people free hospitalisation. Nothing was said about free hospitalisation for 35 days; just free hospitalisation. Nothing was said about pensioners being aware that after 35 days they will have to pay $12.40 a day. There was no mention of that. How can a pensioner, who will be able to go home eventually, spend a month in a public hospital and maintain his home when he is paying $86.80 a week for a bed? We have been told that the costs of Medicare are better for nine out of 10 patients. But the people and patients in Australia are waking up to the fact that when they go to the doctor they pay the 15 per cent gap because they are not allowed to insure for the gap. The more they go to the doctor, the more they realise that Medicare is not cheaper for them. The majority of patients insure privately for private hospitalisation, so they have to pay for private hospital insurance. They pay the 15 per cent gap every time they go to the doctor. They pay the one per cent levy. If we look at the levy we find there are tremendous anomalies. Once more, the Government is really ignoring and, indeed, disadvantaging the single income earner. A single income earner, with no children, on a salary of $15,000 a year pays $150 a year. A similar single income earning family with one child pays $ 150 a year. What does a two-income family with no dependent children, one partner with an income of $8,000 and the other with an income of $7,000, pay? They have a combined income of $15,000 and yet they pay only $80. A two-income family with no children on $15,000 pays $80 a year but a single income family on the same income, with one dependent child, pays $150. Is there any justice in that, or is this Government still hell bent on penalising the single income family as it does in other actions in the Budget, such as the decision not to increase the dependent spouse rebate? We were told by the Minister, Dr Blewett, that the one per cent levy would be identified on everyone's payslip. It has not been identified on anyone's payslip . We have no idea what we are paying as our one per cent levy; it is included with the tax. We were told by the Minister in his second reading speech that the levy would be identified, but he has not done that. We were told that Medicare was good for everyone-the best health scheme that Australia could possibly have. But it was not good enough for him when his daughter needed an appendicectomy. He did not just take the doctor on duty. It was not good enough for him. What he says is good enough for everyone else is not good enough for him. I do not blame him one bit because it would not be good enough for my daughter either. I want the doctor of my choice. Dr Blewett wanted the doctor of his choice for his daughter and I do not blame him one bit. I agree with him that there should be a choice and there certainly would be under our scheme. Senator Grimes —You are a fascist like your relatives. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes will withdraw that remark. Senator Grimes —What is the problem, Mr Deputy President? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Grimes, your remark was that Senator Walters is a fascist. You must withdraw. Senator Bolkus —He is right. Senator Grimes —I will withdraw that. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Deputy President, Senator Bolkus just said 'he is right' . I ask that that be withdrawn too. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I wonder whether it is legitimate for the honourable senator to rise in this place and tell deliberate untruths about a member of another House of parliament, as Senator Walters is doing about Dr Blewett. I think it is terribly important that we consider that because what the good senator is doing is deliberately telling untruths about Dr Blewett. Of course, she is also trying to indulge in the practice of discussing the private medical problems of a person in this place. That would be very interesting indeed if in the future we could do that about ourselves or about our relatives. Mr Deputy President, I ask you to consider whether Senator Walters is allowed, under the guise of the legislation and using tactics which have nothing to do with this legislation, to get up in this place and make accusations about the Minister for Health and about the daughter of the Minister for Health which I consider an absolute outrage. Senator Walters's husband would be taken before the Medical Council if he did the same thing outside this place. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, you have made your point of order. I have to tell you that remarks which reflect directly on individual members are out of order. Questions of whether remarks about the behaviour of members are true or not are a matter for debate. You will be speaking later in the debate and if you dispute the interpretations that Senator Walters put on the events that happened you are entitled to reply during the debate. There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, if I can take a point of order again-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may not take the same point of order. If you wish to take a different point of order you may. I have ruled on that point of order. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I will take a different point of order. We have a standing order which says that senators should not reflect on members of another chamber. I put it to you that Senator Walters, by getting up and telling deliberate lies about a member of another chamber, is in fact contravening that standing order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Standing order 418 rules out of order any imputation of improper motives or improper behaviour to members of the House of Representatives. Senator Grimes —Isn't that what she has done? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As it has been described I do not think that is correct. Senator Grimes —Good. So we can reply in kind, can we? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may reply during the debate as long as you are in order. Before I go any further, Senator Bolkus made a remark that he should withdraw, supporting an improper remark that has been withdrawn by Senator Grimes. Senator Bolkus —Mr Deputy President, I gather the remark I have to withdraw is the one made by Senator Grimes that Senator Walters is a fascist. Despite the fact that most people in this Parliament believe it, I withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Bolkus, you will withdraw it without qualification . Senator Bolkus —I withdraw it without qualification, as I said. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, this is as old as the Senate, I guess. Senator Peter Baume —We will get on to telephones one day. Senator Bolkus —You are scum, Baume. You scum. Come over here and explain that. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, I am not quite sure what is going on-- Senator Bolkus —Senator Baume knows-the little gutter rat. Senator WALTERS —But obviously Senator Bolkus is objecting very strongly. It sounds as though he has a terribly guilty conscience about something. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Bolkus, your interjection is very improper. You will cease interjecting. Senator Grimes —You are a charmer, a real charmer. Senator WALTERS —I have not got a clue what that is about. This attempt by Senator Grimes to intimidate me is as old as the hills, as old as the Senate. He has tried so often in this place. He has taken five minutes of my time on pointless points of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, I think it would help the proceedings of the Senate if you were to return to the Bill. There are too many interjections from the Government benches. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, I will certainly return to the Bill. A little earlier I was referring to the doctor bashing that goes on in this place by Senator Grimes in particular and by Dr Blewett in the other place. A little while ago we had the Penington Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. We have Press statements which say that Dr Blewett claimed in his submission-if honourable senators remember this was the result of all the doctors going on strike for the first time in the history of Australia-that pathology services had risen by 105 per cent over seven years. Mr Penington said they had not risen by 105 per cent, as Dr Blewett said, but by 39.7 per cent. He claimed that radiology services rose by 55 per cent over seven years but Mr Penington found that they had actually fallen by 14.1 per cent. The cost of pathology services rose by only 13.1 per cent over nine years, and for radiology services the cost fell by 15.4 per cent over nine years. He could not even give the right figures to the inquiry he set up. We also know that Senator Grimes and Mr Blewett have concentrated on fraud and overservicing. Senator Cook —Dr Blewett. Senator WALTERS —He is not a medical doctor; but, Dr Blewett. He has said that fraud and overservicing were costing the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars. We also know that the Professor of Statistics at Macquarie University, Professor Don McNeil, said that the Minister's figures were totally wrong, and that there was nothing he abhorred more as a statistician and as a scientist than having policies based on incorrect figures. Professor McNeil did not have any axe to grind but he said that the Department of Health and the Minister ought to take more cognisance of how things should be done. I turn now to the categorisation of hospitals by the Minister, the report on which I have referred to already. As we all know, we now have just three categories-- Senator Crowley —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to standing order 421, which asks that honourable senators not continue to be irrelevant or tediously repetitious. Not only is the honourable senator being tediously repetitious but also she is being tediously repetitious quite wide of the Bill with which we are dealing. She is not addressing the legislation to hand at all but is ranging often across every other tediously repeated subject. I ask you to rule under standing order 421 that she cease. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, I have only a few minutes left. Members of the Government do not like what they are hearing and so, as usual, they take points of order to take up time. The Government has made an incredible mess of Medicare. Dr Blewett has also messed up the categorisation of hospitals. The report of the task force established to review private hospital categorisation arrangements said: . . . the step in benefits between categories is too great, leading to distinct anomalies. Furthermore, the penalty for a hospital at the top of the range that just fails to meet the criteria for a higher category . . . is extreme. The task force recommends to the Department that there should be five categories , not three, as the Minister and the Government have provided. As a result of this Medicare muddle, we find that there are waiting lists all over Australia. Senator Crowley —Boring! Senator WALTERS —Victoria has a waiting list of 30,000 people. Senator Crowley says it is boring to mention this. Around 30,000 people are waiting for surgery in Victoria. New South Wales is not sure what its waiting list is because its Government will not count those waiting. Tasmania has a waiting list of 3,500, and so it goes on. I urge the Government to re-examine the 35-day rule and thereby avoid the need for extra nursing home beds. The rule is harsh, unjust and lacks compassion. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(10.30) —After Question Time today Senator Teague rose on a point of explanation in which he suggested he was misrepresented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and me on Wednesday, 10 October. I asked a question of the Minister for Social Security as follows: Is the Minister for Social Security aware of a statement by Senator Teague in the Adelaide Press that the social security inspectors will enter people's homes to assess personal assets when the assets test is introduced? Will the Minister explain to the Senate and the people of Australia the facts? The only mistake I made was that Senator Teague did not make the statememt in the Press but a statement was attributed to him on a radio station on that day. I was informed that morning just before Question Time that Senator Teague had made a statement on the radio to that effect, or it was a Press report directed from Senator Teague, that people on pension in future would be visited by inspectors to assess their furniture and possessions. Senator Teague —That is false. Senator ELSTOB —That is not false at all. Two phone calls were made to my home on that morning by pensioners stating that such a thing had been reported. At that time I understood it was in the Wednesday morning newspaper. In fact, I was mistaken and I admit that; it was a report given over the radio. There was a statement, and undoubtedly it was released by Senator Teague or by his staff, that the Hawke Labor Government intended under the assets test to visit pensioners' homes to assess what was in them. Senator Teague knew and the Liberal Party knew that this was false and that the Labor Party had no intention of doing such a thing. I asked the Minister for Social Security at that time to clarify the position because of the fact that pensioners who had contacted my home about the matter on that day had been upset by the report. It is no use Senator Teague saying that statements were not made on his behalf. Senator Teague —It is true; they were not made. Senator ELSTOB —They were made on his behalf. It is an outrage that people who have worked and fought for this country should have the fear of God put into them. It was the duty of any senator to raise this question to clarify the position so that pensioners would not think that they would be visited by gestapo methods. This Government has not followed those tactics and never will. I was denied by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) a democratic right when I sought leave to explain the position. The only mistake I made was to suggest that the report was in the daily Press. I honestly understood that to be the case at the time. I repeat that I had two phone calls and I found out later in the afternoon that the report had been on the radio. That is the only thing that I admit to. It is up to any senator to raise this question because it is of such importance to the elderly and retired people whom Senator Teague and his Party have upset. I cannot forgive him for that because he has upset people by fear and rumour-mongering tactics. Senator Cook —Disgusting. Senator ELSTOB —What Senator Teague has done is absolutely disgusting. As people took the trouble to ring my home and my office it was my duty to raise this question and clarify the position. Senator Teague —Check your facts first. Senator ELSTOB —You were well aware-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Elstob, I suggest you address your remarks to the Chair. Senator ELSTOB —Mr President, Senator Teague and the Liberal Party were well aware of the facts. The legislation was before them. They knew what would happen . What they did today was political gimmickry to upset the people who have built this country and fought for it. That is what I object to. I think it is an utter disgrace that the matter should have been raised. It is fair enough that there be differences of opinion in politics, but I think it is totally unforgivable that totally false statements have been put out, thereby worrying people. It does neither Senator Teague nor the Liberal Party any credit. It is outrageous that that line was taken. The retired people of this country should be treated better than they have been by the Liberal Party. I make no apology, although I made an error in saying that Senator Teague made his statement in the Press when he made in on radio. That was the only mistake I made, and it was not my fault. I was misinformed. But I was informed by people in Adelaide in several calls to my house and my office that Senator Teague said that people would visit their homes to assess them. People do not make such statements unless they are true. I think it is an outrage. I simply raise the question to clarify it. I think the Liberal Party should seriously consider where it is headed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.38) —I thought we would probably hear from Senator Elstob on the adjournment because that was an appropriate time for him to make his statement. I thought I would follow him to explain why I refused leave this morning. This morning Senator Baden Teague gave a personal explanation. The Senate will recall that the Minister at the table, who happened to be the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, sought leave to make not a personal explanation but a statement following that. Leave was granted, as I think was appropriate, given that he was the Minister at the table and was involved. Senator Grimes then made a statement which in my view debated the personal explanation which had been given by my colleague Senator Teague. That is not unusual in this place, but it seemed to me that when a second Government senator, in the form of Senator Elstob, then sought leave to make a statement, since it was not a formal debate it was a matter, should he wish to add to it, that could be done on the adjournment. I simply say to Senator Elstob that there is no one in this chamber to whom I would less wish to refuse leave because, in the main, he is a very courteous and proper senator. I say that with very great respect. From that point of view I thought I should on the adjournment tonight explain to him why I had refused him leave. Having heard him tonight, I am very pleased that I did so. He very clearly did wish to debate the issue as he has on the adjournment and I think this is the appropriate place for him to do it. Having listened to him, I can only say that I am utterly amazed that he sat silent during the by-election for Lowe when his colleagues engaged in the most terrific scare campaign against the pensioners in that electorate on the basis of what the Government might do to them, not on the basis of the introduction of something that the Government had legislated for and announced its policy on but on the basis of a statement by the then Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party on the principle of an assets test. I can only say that if Senator Elstob feels as strongly as he does on this subject it really is a shame that he remained silent at that time. It is a bit of a pity, too, that he remained silent when Senator Grimes, who is at the table now, engaged at various times in what I think was quite a bit of scaremongering whilst I was Minister for Social Security. I think that Senator Elstob, if we go back over recent history, does not have particular cause to be outraged. The fact of the matter is that his Government has done a number of things which have significantly upset many aged Australians . The first thing, I suppose, was the abolition of the income test free pension for over 70s. That, to my knowledge, upset many aged Australians who had been receiving that pension and who saw it as something of a compensation for the years of inflation they had suffered which had seen a reduction in the value of their own independent incomes. The second thing which the Government did was to introduce a new taxation arrangement for lump sum superannuation. Although that does not affect those people who are already retired and will affect retirees in the near future, only on a shaded-in basis, the fact of the matter is that that has caused very considerable concern to superannuants or potential superannuants. Finally, I do not think there can be any doubt that the Government in reality has caused concern with this assets test. I can remember that when people such as Senator Teague complained about the assets test in this place we were all told that we were a bunch of dreadful scaremongerers and were behaving quite improperly. When we said that we would hold the assets test up the Government actually sat on it for a while and in February, five months after the Government's Budget, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-Senator Elstob's Prime Minister-said at the Press Club : 'You have got it wrong'. That was not a Liberal speaking; that was Senator Elstob's Prime Minister. He said: 'You have got it wrong'. He set up a committee under Professor Gruen to try to get it right. The Government got recommendations from the Gruen Panel of Review of Proposed Income and Assets Test and changed those recommendations too-- Senator Grimes —Not so. Senator CHANEY —The Minister adopted one particular option-one of the easier options-because he knew that the aged people of Australia were deeply concerned. It is just a farce to have a Government senator blaming Senator Teague for raising this matter in a political context. Of course this is a political matter . A great many aged Australians think this Government has a damned cheek for doing what it has done. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that that should not be a matter for political comment. Senator Elstob has had the grace to admit here that he had part of the story wrong, that his information was not correct in at least one particular. Today we have an explanation from Senator Teague about what was said on his behalf over the air. That is different from what Senator Elstob said was put across by Senator Teague. The fact of the matter is that Senator Elstob is relying on secondhand information. He was relying on reports from pensioners who had phoned his home and he has admitted here tonight that in one particular he was wrong. I think it is absolutely scandalous that Senator Elstob should, on the basis of hearsay reports, deny the personal explanation which has been very clearly given in this place by Senator Teague as to what has been said on his behalf on the air. I think that the outrage expressed by Senator Elstob is quite misplaced. As for this business about gestapo methods, I think that is the attitude which was adopted by the Minister. He is the one who raised this question of gestapo methods. He is the one who made an inference against Senator Teague about using these sorts of methods. I think that again is the sort of rhetoric that we have got used to in this place. Senator Grimes —I didn't send my brother to stop people voting. Senator CHANEY —I suggest that the Minister go away and read the royal commission report. I am used to Senator Grimes's silly comments. Senator Grimes —I will get nasty if you get nasty. Let us not be unkind. Senator CHANEY —This is fairly typical of this place and I will not be sat down by Senator Grimes who likes to use these tactics. I can only say that when Senator Grimes interjects that I have tried to stop Aboriginals voting in the Northern Territory, which is what he has said-- Senator Grimes —Wasn't it Western Australia? Senator CHANEY —He said that I had done so in the Northern Territory. I regard that allegation with contempt. I do not think there is any serious doubt in this place or anywhere else about my attitude on those matters. I remind the Minister that while I was Minister I obtained a training team which was set up through the Commonwealth Electoral Office and worked in the area of Aboriginal enrolment and Aboriginal training to try to ensure that Aboriginals exercised their votes. I totally and contemptuously reject the sort of thing which has been said by the Minister. It is typical of his debating technique in this place and I have nothing but contempt for it. I simply say to Senator Elstob that I accept that he has responded in good faith to matters which have been raised with him. I say to him that Senator Teague has for his part put on the record in a clear way what he has said on the air in South Australia. I believe that the facts are now before the Senate. I conclude by saying to Senator Elstob that I am sorry that I denied him leave to speak this morning in the sense that I am sorry that it was he to whom I denied leave. I think in all the circumstances that that was the appropriate way to deal with it. If such a matter is to be debated, the adjournment is the time to deal with it. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(10.46) —I welcome all that the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, has said. I will not add to my personal explanation of today, except to note that nothing that Senator Elstob has said tonight has in any way detracted from one word of that personal explanation. I, like Senator Chaney, regard Senator Elstob as an honourable senator. I will regard him as even more honourable if he will admit that at no stage in the media in South Australia have I referred to inspectors entering people's homes. Senator Grimes —Just knocking on doors. Senator TEAGUE —Or even knocking on doors. I take this opportunity to say that I will resolutely continue in the coming weeks to oppose this Government and to work for the election of a Liberal-National Party coalition government to govern Australia. However sensitive the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, is to the weaknesses of his policies in his area or in any other area of the Government's making, I will continue to criticise the assets test. The places to oppose those areas which I do not believe are in the best interests of Australia are here and in the electorate. I take the opportunity as well to say something of the misplaced education policies of this Government last year, which we debated in the electorate and in this chamber. I believe we debated them sufficiently effectively that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) gained support in the Cabinet for a reversal of the way in which the Government's education policy with regard to the funding of schools was heading. I believe that that debate in the public area and in the Parliament was effective in serving Australia. We will resolutely oppose this assets test in the same way until the Government reverses its decision, and not just in the way that the Prime Minister did in February. I believe that with a change of government we will see a further reversal. I reinforce my opposition to an assets test which I believe is unfair and unnecessary, and which does not serve Australia. I will not be deterred from that opposition by misquotations by Government senators or even by the sensitivities of and false accusations by the Minister. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(10.49) —I refer to an answer to a question given by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, on 11 October regarding the Northern Territory gas pipeline and a proposed aluminium smelter. In the question Senator Robertson referred to the aluminium smelter and gas pipeline projects for the Northern Territory. In the answer it appears that there was some unfortunate confusion in the mind of the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, between the two projects or perhaps there was some shortfall in the Minister's briefing. The two projects are separate and unrelated, with time frames perhaps seven to 10 years apart. The first project is a gas pipeline designed to have central Australian gas used in Darwin to bring electricity costs into line with electricity charges. This means reducing costs from about 18c per kilowatt to 9c per kilowatt and eliminating a Commonwealth subsidy, currently on a level of about $60m per year. This project might come to fruition in 1987 with the co-operation of all parties concerned. The second project aims at tapping the off-shore petrol gas field, requiring about $3 billion in investment. Such development might include liquefied natural gas export, a gas to gasolene plant and electricity for an aluminium smelter. This project is not likely to come to fruition until the mid- 1990s. Therefore, Senator Walsh is wrong to say that the smelter is associated with the pipeline project. The two are quite separate. Since Senator Walsh's briefing on the pipeline appears to be deficient, I would like to provide some further details for him. First, as to the gas supply, the Northern Territory Government and the producers believe the required gas-about 200 PJ over 20 years-is available from the Mereenie and Palm Valley fields. This belief is supported by Van Poollen and Associates, international petroleum consultants of very high repute. Van Poollen assesses the proven reserves at Palm Valley as near 33 PJ. The assessment is also agreed to by the Royal Bank of Canada, which is acting as consultant to the Northern Territory Government and which has had significant experience in the financial analysis of pipeline projects. The Royal Bank of Canada says that 200 PJ of reserves are bankable for project financing. There are some technical differences of opinion held by the Bureau of Mineral Resources as to whether the gas volumes are held in Palm Valley or Mereenie, but these differences are being sorted out by sensible technical discussion, as such things ought to be. I am also advised that the Northern Territory Government has now negotiated a price for the option to take gas from Palm Valley. The price is one which ensures the viability of the project. The Northern Territory Government and the Westpac consortium continue to negotiate on the pipeline tariff and, while the details of this are not yet settled, no one would argue that the pipeline is uneconomic with or without Gove being included. I say 'no one' because it is important that we realise that many Commonwealth Government departments have been provided with the various economic analysis papers. Those departments include the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Pipeline Authority. At present the Northern Territory Government is fine-tuning power generation technology options. The basic choice seems to be open cycle gas turbines, combined cycle gas turbines, or some combination of these. What the final choice will be is still undecided, but again no one argues that the system is uneconomic. This is really an exercise in getting to the preferred option. I understand that the Northern Territory Government has consulted and liaised with all interested parties on an open book basis. I believe this is a project for Australia with 60,000 to 100,000 tonnes of steel pipe required and thousands of man years of work involved. A significant proportion of this work will be done in the Port Kembla area where a depressed outlook for work has existed for some time. I sincerely hope that this project is not jeopardised by the Minister's attitude, as expressed over the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and within Hansard. I shall give a few further facts and figures regarding this enormous project. The project is the most attractive of the alternatives considered in considering the question of Darwin's power house. This power house is being constructed now at a cost of some hundreds of millions of dollars. In 1981 the Northern Territory looked at the various forms of energy that could be used. It concluded that hydro-power from the Ord River would be mostly tied up in Western Australia ; that there was not sufficient base load for nuclear power in Darwin; that the development of off-shore gas would be too expensive; and that there was nothing at the time to indicate that gas from central Australia would be a feasible project-I am going back now to 1981. So, coal from Queensland got the go-ahead by default. There are a number of problems with coal, as was soon found out. These included the huge shipping costs. No relief has been offered by the State governments of New South Wales and Queensland. The Territory would have to pay the same price as overseas purchasers. The cost goes from $15 or $16 per tonne to $40 f.o.b. Also, 33 unions were involved in the industry. Of course, 33 unions had the potential to cut off supplies at a crucial time. It was at this time that further gas wells were discovered in the southern and south west part of the Northern Territory. One of those discoveries was Dingo. It was originally thought that the pipeline would cost $400m but with technical advances four to five kilometres of pipeline can be laid per day, and the cost would be $230m. So , in just a matter of some three years the technical change which has taken place has resulted in an immense saving of $170m. Late last year the Northern Territory Government called tenders for the supply of gas to Darwin and received six bids-five for reticulated gas around Darwin and one for piped gas from Alice Springs. The bid came from the Australian Gas Light consortium comprising the Australian Gas Light Co., Boral Gas Ltd, CSR Ltd , the Moonie Oil Co. Ltd, Nabalco Pty Ltd and Westpac Banking Corporation. Westpac commissioned a report on the feasibility of the project which was carried out by Van Poollen and Associates. The report showed a saving of $145m over the coal proposal in the first 15 years of operation of a gas-powered station. The saving is in the final price and lower capital cost of the gas powered station. From the year 2003 it is expected that the cost would be 6* per kilowatt hour in real terms. I have a copy of the economic feasibility study dated 16 August 1984 entitled 'The Northern Territory Gas Supply Consortium by the Australian Gas Light Co., Boral Gas Ltd, CSR Ltd, the Moonie Oil Co. Ltd, Nabalco Pty Ltd and Westpac Banking Corporation'. I seek leave to have this document tabled in the Senate so that honourable senators or anybody in the community who wishes to see or learn more about this project can read this document. As I say, it is an open project and the only way it can be successful is by being better understood. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —Following negotiations, a memorandum of understanding has been signed with Westpac. I refer now to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled 'Magellan wins Northern Territory gas contract'. This is a very accurate article by Peter Gill in Canberra except for the third paragraph in which it is actually said that the consortium has signed a contract. The contract has not been signed because, as I have indicated, the memorandum of articles has been signed with Westpac, not an agreement. So, it is now proposed to investigate and confirm the economic and financial assumptions upon which Westpac based its assessment. As I say, no contract has been signed with the Magellan corporation. But, as I have indicated, it has signed a letter of intent , and letters of intent are required from other members of the venture to illustrate to the Federal Government the viability of the project. Of course, it is acknowledged that the case has to be prepared and the submissions then go to the Federal Government. It is then intended to approach the Federal Government to transfer the $160m subsidy paid to the coal fired project to the gas project. The outlook for the gas pipeline's viability is even more attractive if an extension to supply Gove is included in the plan. The current proposal is for a 12-inch pipeline from Alice Springs to Darwin. If Gove comes in-it has a demand for power three times that of Darwin-a 16-inch pipeline from Alice Springs to Mataranka would be required and then two 12-inch pipelines to Gove and Darwin. I turn now to gas reserves at Palm Valley, Mereenie, Dingo and Orange Creek. Dingo and Orange Creek need further appraisal. It is doubtful that Mereenie can produce at this stage but, once into production, it has even more than Palm Valley. Palm Valley has a production history, and the revised Van Poollen appraisal has estimated that there is more than five times as much gas there as originally thought. This is where I think there has been some confusion in the project because now the reserves have been proved and developed immensely over the last four or five years. I feel, in light of the Minister's criticism that, sadly, the information that has been given to him is perhaps some four to five years or even more behind the times. I was saying that Palm Valley had five times as much gas as originally thought. Its reserves are estimated at 260 million cubic feet, more than enough to supply Darwin for 15 or 20 years. The requirements for those periods are 170 million and 240 million cubic feet respectively. I understand that the information has come from the Bureau of Mineral Resources and that it has been basing its advice on outdated information. On the basis of that information, Senator Walsh described the scheme in the Senate and on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as 'pie in the sky' or 'a piece of lunacy'. I think it would be now a foolish man who would make such a criticism without first inquiring into the adequacy of his sources, and I do not doubt that Senator Walsh will regret his hasty statement. I had hoped to put a number of questions to him today. I did not have the opportunity. I put them now in the hope that Senator Walsh will give some indication as to the reliability of his source of information. The questions I wished to ask him this morning were as follows: I refer to the Minister's statements in reply to a question from Senator Robertson last Thursday. In view of the severe criticism of statements made by the Minister relating to the proposed Alice Springs to Darwin gas pipeline in the media, does the Minister concede that his remarks were ill-considered and based on unreliable information? In particular, does the Minister acknowledge that the information provided to him was wrong in that it put the view that the gas pipeline and the aluminium smelter to be built in the Northern Territory are associated when the two projects are quite separate? Does the Minister believe that he was misled by his informants? In closing, I make the point that the north of Australia is on the verge of a breakthrough in the search for cheap energy so essential to the development of the outback and our north coast. Now there is every indication that our inland natural resources are going to be that trigger. Fuels for power generation for remote areas are extremely costly. Hopefully these small towns along the Stuart Highway, which bisects the Northern Territory, will be able to link to this pipeline. All in all, there is much room for optimism, not pessimism. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.05) —I will refer the matters that Senator Kilgariff raised to Senator Walsh, Senator Walsh's Department or Mr Beazley, who is standing in for Senator Walsh, for answers as soon as possible. Senator Elstob came in tonight to defend his right to raise the matters that he raised in Question Time concerning the reported statement of Senator Teague. I do not wish to drag on this endless dispute any further, I just refer honourable senators to the Hansard at the end of Question Time when the question was asked. Senator Teague made no bones about the fact that he had made a statement. He explained at the time that until I had answered the question he had thought that people would be knocking on doors- Senator Teague —That is not true. Senator GRIMES —If the honourable senator reads the Hansard, he will see it. That is what I answered in the question. I must say that there is much merriment from radio journalists in South Australia at the many versions of what was supposed to have happened. Senator Teague —That is not true either. Senator GRIMES —I can assure the honourable senator that that is true. As for Senator Chaney's little lecture to me and others on debating techniques in this place, I have put down my ground rules in the past and I put them down again now . It always seems very strange to me that senators of the conservative parties in this place seem to think that they have the right to pass personal reflections on senators on this side of the chamber, individually or collectively. In the light of what Senator Walters has said this evening and in the light of what some of her colleagues have said in another place, they seem to believe that it is perfectly respectable in this place to bring up the personal medical history and medical condition of the children of members of parliament and have them discussed in this place. If they are to be ground rules we are going to have real fun and games in this place. I have basic and simple rules. One is that I do not ask for things that have been said about me to be withdrawn. It is not worth it. Secondly, if Senator Chaney or anyone else in this place-Senator Sir John Carrick is the worst offender-says things which I find offensive, untrue and personal, it may be crude, simple or Old Testament-like but one of the methods of coping with it quickly, simply and getting it out of the way very quickly is to reply in kind. I know there are double standards. It is perfectly all right for conservatives to say things about people on this side of the House and I know they get terribly offended when someone like myself or Senator Walsh replies in kind. I assure honourable senators that as long as I am here I will continue to do so. The fact that Senator Chaney is gong to read pompous little lectures when that happens does not affect me at all. It will not affect my methods at all. If Senator Walters wants to discuss the personal health of members of parliament on this side of the chamber, I assure her that we are perfectly willing to discuss the same thing about people on that side of the chamber. We will answer in kind every time. I have no compunction- Senator Peter Rae —Shame. Senator GRIMES —It may be a shame, Senator Rae- Senator Peter Rae —Two wrongs do not make a right. Senator GRIMES —That may be so, but frequently there is no other defence, I am afraid. If we are going to have it dealt out to us in the way that some people seem to like to deal it out to us, I am afraid they will be responded to in kind . As it happens, I personally would not respond to Senator Walters's tactics in kind because I have personal, medical and other reasons for never considering to do such a thing. But I put it to honourable senators that if this is going to go on in this place, it will inevitably go on from both sides of the chamber. I think that is a pity. Senator Chaney —You respond to political criticism with personal criticism. Senator GRIMES —I will give the honourable senator an example of his definition of political criticism. For example, it is perfectly all right for Senator Lajovic to call people on this side of the chamber communists, but it not all right for people on this side of the chamber to call Senator Lajovic a fascist. That may be a fine distinction of people on that side of the House, but there is no distinction as far as we are concerned. I suggest that the Senate ought to adjourn and we go home. We have an early start in the morning. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 281. Banking Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984 No. 282. Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No. 50-Recreation Leave and others. No. 51-Operation Algum Allowance. No. 52-Separation Allowance and others. No. 53-Recreation Leave. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules 1984 Nos 277, 278, 279, 280, 284. International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984 No. 283. GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S MESSAGES-ASSENT TO LAWS: Messages from His Excellency the Governor-General were reported, informing the Senate that His Excellency had, in the name of Her Majesty, assented to the following laws: 10 October 1984-Message No. 86- Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Act 1984 Income Tax (Individuals) Act 1984 Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Act 1984 Medicare Levy Act 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Administration Amendment Act 1984 Bank Account Debits Tax Amendment Act 1984 15 October 1984-Message No. 87- Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act 1984 National Crime Authority (Status and Rights of Chairman) Act 1984 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 246) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 June 1983: (1) Why are the payments for contractual termination and for the loss of office or employment by self-employed people to be subject to the new 'super tax', while employees redundancy payments in similar circumstances are not. (2) Is the limiting period in which lump sums may be 'rolled-over' into another fund and thereby exempted from tax, to be 90 days. (3) How will this affect the unemployed person who may be employed, for example , for six months. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Income Tax Assessment Act (No. 3) 1984 introduced new measures for the taxing of lump sum superannuation and kindred payments, received on retirement or termination of employment. As I foreshadowed in a supporting statement to my Economic Statement of 19 May 1983, the amending legislation made no change in the tax arrangements relating to bona fide redundancy payments, provided such payments meet certain criteria. Under these criteria, a bona fide redundancy payment is calculated as being the excess amount an employee receives above the amount that he or she would have received had resignation or retirement from employment occurred. The taxpayer must be prematurely dismissed by reason of his or her bona fide redundancy and there must be no arrangement for the re-employment of the person. Where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length, the payment must be no greater than the amount which would have been paid if the employer and employee were dealing at arm's length. These criteria may not be relevant to the case of a self-employed person. Furthermore, amounts received by self-employed people in connection with the cancellation or variation of trade or other commercial contracts made in the course of carrying on a business are in the nature of income and are fully assessable to tax. Those payments have never been treated concessionally under the income tax law. The effect of the new legislation is that the previously existing treatment of the relevant payments is being maintained for both employees and self-employed people. (2) For payments received after 1 September 1984, the roll-over period will, in normal circumstances, expire 90 days after the date of payment, although the Commissioner of Taxation may extend the period in special circumstances. Under that authority, the roll-over period for eligible termination payments received up to 1 September 1984 has been extended to expire on 30 November 1984. (3) I have assumed that the honourable senator means to refer to a person who is unemployed for six months. On this basis, an unemployed person who wishes to transfer his or her lump sum superannuation entitlement into the superannuation fund of a new employer, but who has not found new employment by the end of the roll-over period, will be able to deposit that money to one of the approved deposit funds established to receive on deposit amounts of eligible termination payments. (Question No. 852) Senator Chipp asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: What are the names, dates of appointment, terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The information requested by the honourable senator is as follows: Home Affairs and Environment Portfolio Details of appointments to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities as at 2 October, 1984. Date of Term of Name appointment appointment salary (a) $ Australia Council Dr T. L. Pascoe (b) (acting Chair-part-time) 1.10.84 to 31.12.84 16,433 per year Associate Prof. D. R. Horne A.O. (c) (Chair-part-time) 1.1.85 3 years 16,433 per year Ms E. A. Churcher (Deputy Chair) 4.7.84 to 9.5.86 8,823 per year Mr M. Crosby 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr C. Dixon 4.7.84 to 7.9.86 Nil-Senior Project Officer, Aboriginal Hostels Limited (d) Mr P. J. Galvin 27.1.83 During the pleasure of the Governor-General Nil-Commonwealth public servant (d) Ms D. Gribble 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Ms J. Kott 3.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Mrs D. M. Large 26.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Mr E. J. O'Neill 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr J. M. Pinder 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Dr M. T. Radic 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr A. Steel A.M. 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr I. Templeman 26.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Ms H. Williams 11.5.84 During the pleasure of the Governor-General Nil-Commonwealth public servant (d) Aboriginal Arts Board Mr C. Dixon (Chair) 8.9.83 3 years Nil-Senior Project Officer, Aboriginal Hostels Limited (d) Mr E. Bani 8.9.83 3 years 128 per day Mr C. Cook 21.3.84 2 years 128 per day Mr J. Davis M.B.E. 8.9.83 2 years 128 per day Mr J. Everett 8.9.84 3 years 128 per day Ms G. Fletcher (Thancoupie) 8.9.83 3 years 128 per day Mr C. Godjuwa 13.1.84 3 years 128 per day Mr A. Mullett 8.9.84 3 years 128 per day Mrs K. Walker M.B.E. 8.9.83 2 years 128 per day Mr P. Yu 8.9.84 3 years 128 per day Community Arts Board Ms B. Manning (Chair) 10.5.83 3 years 6,609 per year Ms J. Beahan 10.8.84 3 years 128 per day MRs J. Blocksidge 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Ms P. Caswell 27.6.84 3 years 128 per day Mr P. Hicks 25.2.82 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Jones 7.7.83 3 years 128 per day Ms S. Norrie 8.6.84 3 years 128 per day Crafts Board Mr D. Green (Chair) 10.8.83 2 years 6,609 per year Mr T. Arthur 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr R. K. M. Forster 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Ms S. Harris 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Ms M. Johnson A.O. 8.3.84 3 years 128 per day Ms E. King 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Ms L. Tune 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Mr D. Wright 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Design Arts Board Mr J. Andrews A.O. (Chair) 9.3.84 to 30.6.85 6,609 per year Ms S. Browne 9.3.84 3 years 128 per day Mr M. Bryce 9.3.84 3 years 128 per day Mr P. Cox 9.3.84 to 30.6.85 128 per day Ms J. Faulkner 9.3.84 2 years 128 per day Mr B. McNeil 9.3.84 3 years 128 per day Mr P. Miller 9.3.84 3 years 128 per day Mr K. J. Wilby 4.4.84 3 years 128 per day Literature Board Ms R. Wighton (Chair) 8.8.84 3 years 6,609 per year Rev. E. Campion 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mrs J. Fitzhardinge 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr K. Gallasch 1.1.83 3 years 128 per day Prof. K. L. Goodwin 4.11.81 3 years 128 per day Ms W. Jenkins 8.6.84 3 years 128 per day Dr G. Lehmann 4.11.81 3 years 128 per day Mr M. Webster 10.5.83 3 years 128 per day Music Board Prof. D. Tunley (Chair) 10.8.83 2 years 6,609 per year Ms J. Bailey 4.11.81 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Brookes 5.4.84 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Christiansen 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr B. Conyngham 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Curro 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Ms L. Edmiston 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Mrs P. Lobl 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Theatre Board Ms E. Butcher (Chair) 1.7.84 1 year 6,609 per year Ms S. Beal 8.6.84 3 years 128 per day Mr M. Blaylock 7.2.84 3 years 128 per day Mr J. McCaughy 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr B. Moreland 10.5.83 3 years 128 per day Mr A. Ross 10.5.83 3 years 128 per day Mr G. L. Simpson 10.5.83 3 years 128 per day Ms C. Stock 10.5.83 3 years 128 per day Visual Arts Board Ms E. A. Churcher (Chair) 10.5.83 3 years 6,609 per year Ms M. Bonnin 1.7.84 1 years 128 per day Ms A. Carroll 19.7.82 3 years 128 per day Ms G. Cochrane 1.7.84 3 years 128 per day Mr I. Howard 8.6.84 3 years 128 per day Ms P. O'Brien 4.5.83 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Senbergs 1.7.84 3 years 128 per day Mr M. Symonds 10.8.83 3 years 128 per day Australian Bicentennial Authority Mr J. B. Reid, A.O. (Chair) 1.4.79 to 30.6.90 19,769 per year Mrs M. E. Aitken, O.B.E. 11.3.83 2 years 206 per day Mr T. Connolly 22.8.83 2 years Nil-Commonwealth public servant (d) Mr S. Drake-Brockman, C.M.G. (appointed by the W.A. Govt) 20.2.84 2 years 206 per day Sir Richard Kingsland, C.B.E., D.F.C. 1.7.83 3 years 206 per day Senator A. W. R. Lewis (appointed by the Leader of the Opposition) 20.2.83 3 years Nil-Senator (d) Mr C. R. MacDonald (appointed by the Vic. Govt) 20.2.83 3 years 206 per day Mr J. B. Maher 16.4.84 5 years 206 per day Mr B. F. Martin, M.B.E., Q.C. (appointed by the N.T. Govt) 20.2.83 3 years 206 per day Mr A. G. McGregor (appointed by the S.A. Govt) 20.2.83 3 years 206 per day Mrs B. T. Payne, O.B.E. (appointed by the Tasmanian Govt) 20.2.84 2 years 206 per day Mr I. M. Russell, O.B.E. (appointed by the Queensland Govt) 20.2.83 3 years 206 per day Mr D. W. Simmons, M.P. (appointed by the Prime Minister) 29.5.83 3 years Nil-Member of the House of Representatives (d) Mr J. R. Thomas, J.P. 16.4.84 5 years 206 per day Mr J. W. Utz, A.O. (appointed by the N.S.W. Govt) 20.2.83 3 years 206 per day Mr J. C. White 16.7.84 5 years 206 per day Council of the Australian Film and Television School Mr D. A. K. Ferguson (Chair) 22.3.83 3 years 8,823 per year Ms S. Baker 11.5.84 3 years 128 per day Mr N. Bolden (elected by staff) 13.12.83 1 year Nil-staff members of the Australian Film and Television School (d) Ms J. Brennan (elected by staff) 13.12.83 1 year Mr J. Daniell (elected by Convocation) 8.7.83 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Flaus (elected by Convocation) 13.12.82 3 years 128 per day Mr W. R. Constable (elected by Convocation) 13.8.84 to 12.12.85 128 per day Ms A. Grieve (elected by students) 12.12.83 1 year Nil-students in receipt of an allowance from the Australian Film & Television School Mr J. C. Manche (elected by students) 23.2.84 to 11.12.84 Mr W. Rayner (elected by Convocation) 13.12.82 3 years 128 per day Mr J. Rushton 14.5.84 3 years 128 per day Mrs M. F. Schubert 22.7.82 3 years 128 per day Mr A. S. Walton A.M. (ex officio) 7.3.80 5 years (e) Nil-Director of the Australian Film and Television School (d) Mr B. M. L. Weiss 9.2.84 3 years 128 per day Mr O. Whitbread (elected by Convocation) 13.12.82 3 years 128 per day Australian Film Commission Mr Adams (Chair) 15.9.83 3 years 8,823 per year Miss E. A. Alexander 1.4.82 3 years 4,487 per year Ms G. P. Appleton 22.6.83 to 23.5.86 4,487 per year Mr R. Beattie 1.1.82 3 years 4,487 per year Mr J. P. Chissick 1.4.82 3 years 4,487 per year Mr W. P. Gurry 26.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr D. J. Stratton 22.6.83 to 10.6.86 4,487 per year Ms S. E. Turkiewicz 26.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr K. L. Williams 26.7.84 to 11.3.87 Nil-Chief Executive of the Australian Film Commission (d) Australian Heritage Commission Dr K. W. Wiltshire (Chair) 28.1.82 3 years 19,769 per year Dr B. W. Davis 6.9.84 3 years 8,823 per year Mrs J. M. Domicelj 1.1.82 3 years 8,823 per year Dr I. McBryde 9.7.82 3 years 8,823 per year Mr L. J. Wilson 9.7.82 3 years 8,823 per year Council of the Australian National Gallery Mr L. G. Darling C.M.G. (Chair) 1.1.82 3 years 8,823 per year Mr M. Besen 4.7.84 2 years 4,487 per year Mr T. K. Critchley A.O. C.B.E. 1.7.82 3 years 4,487 per year Mr J. D. Davies 25.8.83 to 30.6.86 4,487 per year Mr M. W. Elliott 1.7.82 3 years 4,487 per year Ms J. Hick 26.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Mr J. Mollison A.M. (ex officio) 24.2.84 5 years (f) Nil-Director of-the Australian National Gallery (d) Miss L. A. Nicklin 1.7.82 3 years 4,487 per year Mr R. W. Piper 25.8.83 to 30.6.86 4,487 per year Prof M. M. Plant 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mrs P. A. M. Seidler 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Council of the Australian War Memorial Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot K.B.E. A.O. (Chair) 4.7.84 to 30.6.85 8,823 per year Dame Beryl Beaurepaire D.B.E. 3.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Hon. J. D. Corcoran A.O. 15.9.83 3 years 4,487 per year Mrs E. E. Darling M.P. 15.9.83 3 years Nil-Member of the House of Representatives (d) Mr J. N. Davenport, A.O., D.S.O., D.F.C. and Bar, G.M. 4.4.84 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Air Marshal S. D. Evans A.C., D.S.O., A.F.C. (ex officio) 21.4.82 to 30.6.85 ( g) Nil-Chief of the Air Staff (d) Lt. Gen. P. C. Gration A.O., O.B.E., (ex officio) 13.4.84 4 years (h) Nil-Chief of the General Staff (d) Prof. R. B. Joyce 15.9.83 3 years 4,487 per year Sir William Keys O.B.E., M.C. 3.8.82 to 30.6.85 4,487 per year Vice Admiral D. W. Leach A.C., C.B.E., M.V.O. (ex officio) 17.7.82 to 21.4.85 (i) Nil-Chief of Naval Staff (d) Mr C. A. Pugh 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Mr R. Woolan M.C. 1.7.82 3 years 4,487 per year Mr C. M. Wright 4.7.84 3 years 4,487 per year Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Mr G. G. Kelleher (Chair) 20.12.79 5 years 56,840 per year Dr J. T. Baker O.B.E. 1.7.82 5 years 6,609 per year Mr S. Schubert (appointed on the nomination of the Queensland Government) 24.7. 81 to 30.6.86 6,609 per year Council of the Museum of Australia Mr A. T. Dix A.O. (Chair) 21.12.83 3 years 8,823 per year Ms M. A. Bin-Sallik 21.12.83 3 years 4,487 per year Dr M. H. Cass 21.12.83 3 years 4,487 per year Mrs H. E. Cattalini 16.8.84 to 20.12.86 4,487 per year Dr D. F. McMichael C.B.E. (ex officio) 1.2.84 7 years (j) Nil-Director of the Museum of Australia (d) Mr P. H. Pigott A.M. 21.12.83 2 years 4,487 per year Dr W. D. L. Ride A.M. 21.12.83 2 years 4,487 per year Dr L. Ryan 21.12.83 3 years 4,487 per year Mrs C. Serventy O.A.M. 21.12.83 2 years 4,487 per year Mr J. Thompson 21.12.83 3 years 4,487 per year Mr E. P. Willmot A.M. 21.12.83 2 years Nil-Commonwealth public servant (d) Council of the National Library of Australia Hon. A. J. Forbes C.M.G., M.C. (Chair) 2.6.82 to 23.3.85 8,823 per year Dr B. I. Aldrich 8.1.82 to 30.11.84 4,487 per year Mr H. Bryan A.O. (ex officio) 28.7.80 5 years (k) Nil-Director-General of the National Library of Australia (d) Hon. Justice J. Cohen 3.5.84 3 years Nil-Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ( d) Mr M. D. Cross M.P. (elected by the House of Representatives) 4.12.83 3 years Nil-Member of the House of Representatives (d) Senator K. Martin (elected by the Senate) 2.3.84 3 years Nil-Senator (d) Mrs S. St. Leon 16.4.82 to 22.3.85 4,487 per year Emeritus Prof. B. Watts 11.8.82 to 22.3.85 4,487 per year Mrs H. M. E. Weller 27.11.82 3 years 4,487 per year Prof. J. P. Whyte 3.5.84 3 years 4,487 per year Dr D. F. McMichael C.B.E. 6.9.84 3 years Nil-Director of the Museum of Australia (d) (a) The figure shown for salary is the salary or fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. It does not include allowances. Some members do not claim their entitlement. (b) The current acting part-time Chairman of the Australia Council, Dr T. L. Pascoe, was previously full-time Chairman from 29 September 1981 to 30 September 1984. The Minister appointed him as acting part-time Chairman until 31 December 1984 because of the inability of Professor Horne to take up the position of part -time Chairman until 1 January 1985. (c) On 3 May 1984, Associate Professor D. R. Horne was appointed by the Governor-General as part-time Chairman of the Australia Council. However, owing to the unavailability of Professor Horne during 1984, the term of appointment was for a period of three years commencing on 1 January 1985. (d) In accordance with the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973, no salary is payable in respect of part-time appointments where the appointee is already in receipt of remuneration from the Commonwealth in respect of his or her employment or in respect of another public office held on a full-time basis. (e) Term of current appointment as Director of the Australian Film and Television School. (f) Term of current appointment as Director of the Australian National Gallery. (g) Term of current appointment as Chief of the Air Staff. (h) Term of current appointment as Chief of the General Staff. (i) Term of current appointment as Chief of Naval Staff. (j) Term of current appointment as Director of the Museum of Australia. (k) Term of current appointment as Director-General of the National Library of Australia. (Question No. 939) Senator Hamer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 June 1984: (1) What is the dead weight tonnage of each of the two new ships which have been approved for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. as announced by the Secretary of the Department of Transport on 1 June 1984. (2) What is the approved manning level for each of the two ships. (3) What are the designations and duties of the crew for each ship. (4) What is the estimated cost per annum of the crew for each ship in terms of salaries, benefits, holiday bonuses and related costs for each ship. (5) What is the number of days per annum of furlough for each crew member for each ship. (6) What is the estimated cost to revenue of the tax concessions for each ship. (7) What is the difference in the annual operating costs of each of these ships and an identical ship operating under the Swedish flag and one operating under the British flag. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) One ship will be about 147,000 dwt and the other approximately 230,000 dwt. (2), (3) and (6) The Australian Taxation Office has advised that information concerning eligibility of individual shipowners for the concessions is covered by the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act. (4), (5) and (7) The information sought relates to the commercial operations of BHP and should be sought from the Company. (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: The following answer replaces that appearing in Hansard of 10 September 1984, page 761. (1) Children are eligible for services from the National Acoustic Laboratory 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) Pensioners 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. 1045) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: How many medical practitioners and how many specialists in Queensland are bulk billing patients through Medicare and what percentages of the total number of medical practitioners and specialists do those figures represent? Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Number (and percentage) of Practices by Percent of Services Direct Billed Type of Practice 100% 100%-50% 50%-0% 0% Total G.P. Number 143 842 830 1,052 2,867 Percent 5.0 29.4 29.0 36.6 100.0 Specialists Number 82 221 437 861 1,601 Percent 5.1 13.8 27.3 53.8 100.0 Total No. 225 1,063 1,267 1,913 4,468 Percent 5.0 23.8 28.4 42.8 100.0 The above figures related to claims processed by the Health Insurance Commission during the month of August 1984. The only figures available on the number of practitioners direct billing are as follows: Number (and Percentage) of Practitioners Doing any direct billing Some No Total Direct Bill Direct Bill Providers G.P. Number 1,620 528 2,148 Percent 75.4 24.6 100.0 Specialist Number 565 527 Percent 51.7 48.3 100.0 Total Number 2,185 1,055 3,240 Percent 67.4 32.6 100.0 These figures relate to claims processed by the Health Insurance Commission in the month of August 1984. (Question No. 1078) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, 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 Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Defence employs 1361 staff in the categories of word processor operators, stenographers and typists. (2) As of 1 September 1984, 151 of these staff were, or had been off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1084) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 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 Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 39. (2) 3. (Question No. 1094) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government, 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 Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There were 43 word processors, 34 stenographers, 51 typists and 5 typist supervisors employed in my Department as at 1 September 1984. (2) As at 1 September 1984, 34 keyboard staff had been diagnosed, by their own medical practitioner, as having repetition strain injury and another 2 were suspected of having repetition strain injury; 13 were on sick leave at 1 September 1984. (Question No. 1135) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: (1) Under current Medicare regulations are pilots undergoing mandatory medical examinations for renewal of their flying licences unable to claim the cost of the examination under Medicare, yet medical examinations for the renewal of driving licences are covered by the Medicare scheme. (2) Will the Minister for Health take steps to review the situation in view of the facts that: (a) medicals are mandatory under air navigation orders for the renewal of flying licences; (b) they are more costly than a driving licence medical; (c) renewal of private pilot's licences are required every two years. and allow the cost of medicals for pilots' licences to be covered by Medicare. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It is correct that under the current Medicare arrangements pilots undergoing mandatory medical examinations for the renewal of their flying licences are unable to claim the cost of such examinations under Medicare. Such mandatory medical examinations are considered to be health screening services and, as such, are excluded by the Health Insurance Act from Medicare benefits. In the case of driving licences, an exemption was made in respect of persons aged 70 years and over and persons suffering from diabetes or epilepsy, where it is compulsory to undergo a medical examination as a prerequisite to obtaining or renewing a driving licence. This exemption was made on compassionate and humanitarian grounds and also as an indirect contribution towards further improving road safety. (2) No. The Government considers that it is inappropriate for Medicare to bear the burden of health screening services. In the case of pilots, the need to obtain or renew a flying licence is dictated primarily by pecuniary or recreational interests. As such I cannot agree to make an exception to the health screening rule in the case of pilots. (Question No. 1147) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 October, 1984: (1) What is the basis for the levels of funding which are allocated to Aboriginal programs by (a) Department of Aboriginal Affairs, (b) Aboriginal Development Commission and (c) Aboriginal Arts Board; (2) Would it not be appropriate for funding to reflect per capita allocations in view of the fact that Queensland has 29 per cent of Australian Aboriginal and Islander population; (3) What is the percentage funding to Queensland from each of the organisations in (1) above. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs bases its allocation of funds on need and the continuation of ongoing programs which are supported by the Aboriginal Communities Area and Regional Offices of the Department in Queensland . Funding for the expansion of these programs or the commencement of new programs in Queensland is assessed with other competing demands from other States and Territories and funds are allocated on the basis of needs as determined by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on advice from his Department and other advisory bodies such as the National Aboriginal Conference and the National Aboriginal and Islanders Health Organisation. (b) The Aboriginal Development Commission has informed me that funding allocations for 1984-85 were based on the maintenance in real terms of a level of expenditure appropriate to the orderly continuation of Housing, Land and Enterprise programs formulated on a needs basis. With regard to Housing loans the Commission approves loans on the basis of a national waiting list in an order of priority determined by ballot. (c) The Aboriginal Arts Board comes under the portfolio of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. The Department of Home Affairs and Environment has advised as follows: (i) In assessing grant applications the Aboriginal Arts Board takes into account the extent to which each application meets the following policy objectives and criteria: To make a significant contribution to reviving, maintaining or developing Aboriginal cultural and artistic traditions To assist the emergence of new forms of artistic expression among Aboriginal people To be of relevance and benefit to the Aboriginal community participating To promote the creative use of Aboriginal cultural resources leading to greater respect and understanding of Aboriginal artistic and cultural traditions and To give rise to excellence and the best professional work in the variety of art forms practised by Aboriginals. The Aboriginal Arts Board currently gives funding priority to the following groups: children/young people women unemployed and prisoners In 1983-84 the Budget allocated to the Aboriginal Arts Board was $1,108.817. (ii) The Aboriginal Arts Board awards grants in response to applications received and on the basis of established funding criteria. The Board aims to assist all Aboriginal people to participate in the arts and to develop individual talents while promoting a wide appreciation and enjoyment of traditional and contemporary arts of Aboriginal people both in Australia and elsewhere. It is not considered appropriate that funding should be based solely on a per capita or State basis. (iii) Total grants of $158,526 were approved by the Aboriginal Arts Board in Queensland in the 1983-84 financial year. This represented 14.3% of the total budget for the Aboriginal Arts Board. (2) In respect of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Aboriginal Development Commission programs, as mentioned earlier, funds are allocated on a needs basis. The Department and the Commission consider that would be inappropriate to allocate funding on a per capita basis given the varying needs of Aborigines and Aboriginal Communities and also given the amount of other assistance available from other funding bodies or otherwise-State and Local Government in particular. In respect of the programs of the Aboriginal Arts Board-refer to (c) (2) above. (3) From the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland is to receive 16.8% of funds appropriated for direct grants to Aboriginals and grants to or for the States and the Northern Territory in 1984-85. From the Aboriginal Development Commission, Queensland is to receive 20.2% of Housing Grant funds and 17.1% of Land and Enterprise funds. The program for housing loans is determined progressively however for the 1983- 84 financial year 30.3% of Housing loans approved were for Queensland borrowers. For the Aboriginal Arts Board refer to (c) (3) above. (Question No. 1176) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose were the vehicles purchased. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) to (f) My Department and statutory authorities within my portfolio except the Office of the Governor-General do not own motor vehicles. Vehicles in use are hired from or through the Department of Administrative Services. I am advised that that was also the situation prior to March 1983. In respect of the Office of the Government-General the information sought by the honourable senator is: (a) four (b) four (c) one (d) a Ford Falcon station wagon (e) $10,162 (f) General purposes such as courier duties, carriage of baggage, stores et cetera Senator Gareth Evans —On 5 October 1984 (Hansard, page 1323) Senator Durack asked me, as the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, the following question: Were the 20 people referred to by the Special Minister of State in a statement made last night part of the group that has only just been transferred to the Authority. The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As indicated by the Attorney-General on 5 October, 89 of the Costigan Royal Commission staff formally transferred to the National Crime Authority on 1 October. The analysts, collators and others referred to in my statement on the NCA staff working on the Costigan material were part of that 89. Most if not all of these analysts etc formally began working for the Authority on the Costigan material last week. Prior to that, they were, as staff of the Commission, assisting Mr Costigan in writing his final report. As further noted by the Attorney-General, one aspect of this assistance on the report was further developing analyses of particular investigations, which will, of course, also be of use to the Authority. Again, as stressed repeatedly over the last week by both me and the Attorney- the handover of staff from the Costigan Commission to the NCA is, and must be, very flexible. It is reaching its peak now-last week and this week. An integral aspect of establishing the NCA has been that it will take over almost all of the expertise and resources of the Costigan Commission. That is happening right now. (Question No. 1038) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Is the primary aim of Australia's overseas aid program to bolster Australia 's self-interests in areas of strategic, commercial and foreign policy or is it to alleviate poverty in recipient countries. (2) Does the Government consider that the alleviation of poverty should take precedence over all other objectives in circumstances where two or more of the objectives come into conflict. (3) Would Australia's overseas aid program be more effective and valuable if it were channelled solely into specific anti-poverty programs in the neediest countries to minimise wastage of this money. (4) Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledge that some governments in our region are unsuitable as channels of aid intended for the poor, having already awarded a low priority for basic anti-poverty and welfare programs for their own people and who manage to divert aid funding to other purposes. (5) Will the Government consider transferring the Mixed Credit Scheme out of the overseas aid budget and into the more appropriate area of Industry and Commerce, as this is basically a subsidy to Australian businesses tendering internationally. (6) Will the Government also consider transferring responsibility for funding of the bulk of overseas students in Australia out of the overseas aid budget as this is clearly a questionable form of aid to the poor and concentrate instead on a small program of sponsored students more closely related to the development needs of the developing country. (7) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs provide a clear definition of the ultimate goal of our overseas aid program and the strategies for achieving that goal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (7). The issues raised in the question were all addressed by the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, which was chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson. The Committee's report is a thorough and comprehensive examination of the whole aid program. I tabled the Jackson committee report in Parliament on 7 June 1984 as a discussion paper. I indicated then that I hoped the following 12 months would be a period for extensive community and parliamentary discussion of the major issues raised by the report. Since major decisions on the report will affect the direction of our aid program for years to come, I consider it very important for there to be ample opportunity for wide ranging debate on the report which I hope will encourage, to the maximum extent possible, a bipartisan approach to Australia's aid program . I hope to make a major statement on the aid program next session.