Wednesday, 17 October 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The 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 Archer (from 18 citizens), Hamer (from 15 citizens), Messner (from 53 citizens), Peter Rae (from 11 citizens) and Scott (from 34 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 Peter Baume (from 115 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 171 citizens ), Collard (from 19 citizens) and Robertson (from 45 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that: The Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of the Australian people should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your Petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Collard (from 97 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 17 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 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 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Inquiry into the Effect of the current legislation in relation to adults and children has reported to the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators MacGibbon (from 332 citizens) and Robertson (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill'. A Bill for An Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia effectively declaring Australia a: 'Nuclear Weapons Free Zone'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 97 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984,' A Bill for An Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a: 'Nuclear Weapons Free Zone'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 81 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 10 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding . 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 31 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 311 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners therefore 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 Reid (from 316 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace supports: 1. a move towards unity, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to the immediate bilateral freeze of the development of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace- keeping force. 2. the establishment of a Ministry of Peace to focus our energies towards non- violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any one polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide. 3. the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry of Peace. Peace on earth and goodwill to all mankind. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 482 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: Prior to the election in 1983, 1. In response to a question sent to him from the Ethnic Communities Council of N.S.W., Mr Hawke, as leader of the Labor Party, promised he would support a substantial increase in the number of English-as-a-second-language-teachers in schools to the extent of $1.7 million, to give ethnic schools an increase from the present $30 to $45 per pupil. 2. Further, at a pre-election public meeting both Mr Hawke and Senator Ryan repeated this promise. We believe that Mr Hawke as Prime Minister should now fulfil both these promises to the ethnic communities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 184 citizens). Petitions received. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Opposition for the failure of its Leader, Mr Peacock, to formulate, articulate and promote policy; (b) condemns the Federal Opposition for allowing other than Party spokespeople to articulate and formulate its policy, and especially in allowing the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone to speak for the Opposition on matters of taxation, and Professor Blainey on matters relating to immigration; (c) condemns the Federal Opposition for creating its policies by stealth; and (d) calls upon the Federal Opposition to be an honourable Opposition. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, seven sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Agents (Amendment) Ordinance 1984, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 49 of 1984 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate acknowledges the Hawke Labor Government's exceptional record in honouring its election promises, which to date include- (a) increasing housing commencements; (b) introducing the deposit gap bridge assistance for first home buyers; (c) extending supplementary rent assistance of up to $10 per week to welfare recipients; (d) indexation of pensions; (e) paying zone allowance to remote area beneficiaries; (f) increasing benefit to young unemployed by $5; (g) funding an extra $20m for child care; (h) enabling the establishment of 400 new child care projects; (i) introducing Medicare-the fairest health scheme Australia has ever had; (j) bolstering the Australian Institute of Sport; (k) prohibiting mineral sand exports from Moreton Island; (l) declaring the Great Barrier Reef a marine park; (m) providing real incentives to the film industry; (n) seeking closer ties with the A.S.E.A.N. countries; (o) increasing secondary school, university, college and technical college enrolments; (p) stopping the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam and financially compensating Tasmania; (q) acting on Aboriginal land rights; (r) public funding of election campaigns; (s) introduction of party donation disclosure; (t) updating the Electoral Act; (u) simplifying voting procedures for Senate elections; (v) increasing legal aid; (w) upgrading the Human Rights Commission; (x) rewriting the Freedom of Information Act; and (y) creating in Australia a spirit of national consensus, reconciliation and reconstruction. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That in view of- (a) the totally inadequate reporting by the Australian media of the positive and substantial activities of the Parliament and in particular the Senate and its committees; (b) the need for the public to be advised promptly of the proceedings of this National Parliament; and (c) the small distribution of daily and weekly Hansards of our proceedings the President and the Publications Committee be asked to consider and report to the Senate on the feasibility of increasing the numbers of persons who may be supplied with daily Hansards, from ten to one hundred for each Senator. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulate the Hawke Labor Government for its continuing commitment to honouring its 1983 election promises, including promises to: (a) convene a National Economic Summit; (b) reduce inflation; (c) reduce unemployment; (d) reduce the deficit; (e) restore growth to the economy; (f) set up the Prices Surveillance Authority; (g) update the Family Law Act; (h) give the Commonwealth Bank a wider charter; (i) retain accelerated depreciation allowance; (j) set up the Economic Planning Advisory Council; (k) introduce legislation relating to the insurance industry; (l) establish a local pools jobs scheme; (m) review the petroleum products pricing policy; (n) strengthen the Industries Assistance Commission; (o) restructure the steel industry; (p) reduce industrial disputes; (q) restore centralised wage fixing; (r) set up community works programs; (s) establish roads employment programs; (t) increase funding to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (u) finance an independent foundation to assist public broadcasting; (v) enact federal anti-discrimination legislation; (w) introduce public service reforms; (x) construct an Australian Museum; and (y) review the 5-year Defence Plan. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) use of the Queensland Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in its advertising campaign to give credibility to last year 's National Economic Summit; (b) notes that the Queensland Premier condemned the Summit and told the participants they were putting 'a noose around their neck' and refused to sign the Summit communique; (c) condemns the Summit and its off-shoot, the Economic Planning Advisory Council, as an ALP-controlled body with 9 out of its 15 members being ALP puppets, dedicated to legitimising ALP policies; and (d) condemns the ALP for misleading advertising in its use of the Queensland Premier. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, (a) recognising that the present Hawke Socialist Government is a very big spending Government; (b) aware that big spending and big taxes must go hand-in-hand if Australia is to avoid getting even further in debt to overseas banking organisations; (c) convinced that Australia is already too far in debt for the good of future generations; (d) further aware that Australia is spending almost as much on its national debt interest as it is on defence; and (e) recognising that if returned, the present Government will soon be forced to introduce massive tax increases on top of those that have already been imposed, calls on the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke to come clean about his taxation plans, because to vote for him without a taxation statement is likely to lead to the imposition of taxes at a rate never before contemplated in Australia, and possibly upon such things as family land and even family homes, and other 'hip- pocket' areas just as iniquitous. 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 mismanaging the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation's Budget allocations; (b) expresses its alarm over the Federal Government's enforced stoppage of CSIRO's research on water-bombing bushfires from the air, instituted in 1980 by the Fraser Government; (c) considers the $1.2m needed to complete the water- bombing project is a small sum to pay in light of the devastation wreaked across Australia during the bushfire seasons; (d) is alarmed about this prevailing attitude of the Federal Government so soon after the Ash Wednesday tragedies; (e) is also concerned about the Federal Government's attitude to continued funding of this project, when current forecasts are predicting that Sydney and its environs could be facing the worst bushfire threat for 10 years; (f) notes also the concern of fire fighters in Canberra about the dangers facing us in the coming season because of the unusually high level of plant and grass growth following the recent high rainfalls; and (g) urges the Federal Government yet again to urgently review its priorities in research. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke Labor Government for breaking more than 120 election promises within the first 18 months of government and for introducing to Australia a deceptive program of socialism by stealth. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.14) —by leave-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 seeks to provide machinery and a timetable for the formulation of comprehensive reforms of the Australian taxation system, public comment and the introduction into the Parliament of legislation to give effect to those reforms. The Bill does not seek to present the philosophies or policies of the Australian Democrats, nor any other party, as a part of the reform process. It merely seeks to initiate a process and timetable for reform to occur. In general terms, the Bill provides for the establishment of a cross-party Joint House Committee. The Committee, with the assistance and advice of consultants and staff has the following functions- (a) to review- (i) the reports of the Taxation Review Committee (the 'Asprey' Committee); and (ii) the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Taxation and Inflation (the ' Mathews' Committee); (b) to formulate, in the light of its review of those reports and of any evidence taken by the committee for the purposes of that review, comprehensive reforms of the taxation system; and (c) to prepare draft legislation to give effect to those reforms. The Committee shall present copies of its draft legislation to the presiding officers of the Parliament before 1 July 1987. The presiding officers shall table the draft legislation within 15 sitting days after it has been presented. After being tabled in the Parliament, copies of the draft legislation shall be made available for public comment for a period of 12 months. During that 12- month period, any person may make representations to the Committee and suggest amendments to the draft legislation. After the 12-month period of public comment, the Committee may amend the draft legislation in light of representations, suggested amendments or any other evidence. The Committee has 12 months in which to make any such amendments. Within 2 years of the tabling of the initial draft (i.e. 12 months of public comment followed by 12 months of Committee amendments) the Committee shall present copies of the final draft of the legislation to the Minister. The Minister shall then, within 6 months, seek the leave of the House of Representatives to introduce the legislation. The Time-table Minister seeks Amended draft leave to introduce Committee Draft presented to legislation into formed tabled the Minister parliament 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Formulation of reforms Public Amendments Leave sought draft legislation comment in light of to introduce public legislation comment into parliament This time-table will result in the Minister seeking leave to introduce the draft legislation during 1990. If the Parliament at that time supports the legislation and it passes through the Parliament and receives Royal Assent, it does not necessarily mean that a new taxation system would immediately come into effect. Both Government and business are tied into long term plans and investments. It is not practical for the taxation system to be reformed in a short time span. Consequently, although the legislation may receive Royal Assent in 1990, that legislation may not necessarily commence on the same date. It is possible that the date of commencement may be delayed for some years. Alternatively, there may be several commencement dates so that the reforms are phased in. This Bill does not specify when the legislation shall commence. That decision is left to the Committee and to the Parliament at that time. This Bill merely provides for the drafting and introduction of reform legislation, not the manner of its implementation. The reason for this Bill is that the present taxation system has become a complicated, anomaly ridden mess. In simplistic terms, a taxation system needs to be simple, efficient and equitable. The present system fails on all three counts. The present system is anything but simple. No single person could truthfully claim to be aware of, and to understand, the taxation law as it now stands. The tax system is contained within thousands of pages and a multiplicity of inter-related Acts. It has suffered thousands of amendments and contains large numbers of exceptions, anomalies and loopholes. It is a system which even Q.C.s cannot predict or master. The average P.A.Y.E. taxpayer has little hope of understanding the multiplicity of laws which affect him or her. The complexity of the present system is a major reason for its inefficiency. The system abounds with loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies. Consequently, tax avoidance has blossomed. Blatant tax avoidance schemes have proliferated and although the parliament is attempting to stamp them out, the result is that the system becomes increasingly complex and only marginally more effective. The existing system encourages tax practices which, while not constituting evasion, could be seen as being on the borderline between legitimate minimisation and illegal evasion. At present, there is a very fine line between astute business acumen and tax evasion. This is intolerable. A businessperson should be able to operate a concern and know what is clearly acceptable and what is not. There should be a clearly distinguishable line between legal minimisation and illegal evasion. The P.A.Y.E. taxpayer also has similar problems. Very few P.A.Y.E. taxpayers know exactly what are legitimate deductions and what are not. The poor taxpayer has little option other than 'punting' on deductions and waiting for the tax department to declare which are acceptable and which are not. The problems, however, are not confined to those who honestly try to meet their tax commitments. There exists a huge cash economy which is still largely untouched by the tax system. Although recent legislation has made inroads into the black economy, it appears to be surviving and prospering. The existing system is clearly inequitable. Professor Russell Mathews has argued that it would be difficult to improve on the present system if the aim was to deliber- ately design a tax system that requires the poor to pay more taxes than the rich. Wage and salary earners are discriminated against in favour of business and other taxpayers. They do not have the same legal rights and they lack the flexibility afforded to business enterprises. In addition, higher income earners have a greater capacity for tax minimisation . It is a sad fact that those who can afford good legal and accounting advisers are in a much better position to minimise their tax liabilities. The system is inequitable in that it encourages the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. Although the intent of the system is to effect a measure of redistribution of wealth towards the poor and under-privileged, it fails to effectively achieve this. The failure of the present system has been recognised by large numbers of taxpayers. Individuals and groups from all sectors of society have publicly expressed the need for tax reform. The call for tax reform has come from political parties, trade unions, industry groups, academics and welfare groups. Even governments have argued that reform is necessary. Governments have instigated several official inquiries into the taxation system and they have had a series of reports and recommendations presented to them. In June 1974, Mr Justice Asprey presented a preliminary report of the Taxation Review Committee. This was followed by the full report which was presented on 31 January 1975. As a part of that inquiry, a number of commissioned studies were undertaken and departmental papers presented. In May 1975, Professor Mathews, Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation, tabled a report which examined the indexation of taxation, overseas practices and other tax matters. While these inquiries were specifically tax reform inquiries, there have been two subsequent economic/ financial inquiries which have addressed aspects of taxation. The first was the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System chaired by Mr Campbell. The Committee's report was presented in 1982 and was accompanied by a number of commissioned studies concerning taxation. A review of this report was undertaken by a committee chaired by Professor Martin and the subsequent report was presented in 1983. There have also been papers prepared for bodies such as the Economic Planning Advisory Council, Government departments, academics, interest groups and individuals. Most commentators merely point out the failures of the existing system. Others have advocated specific proposals for either the restructuring of existing taxes or the creation of new taxes. The majority of commentators do not look at the entire system, but are merely concerned with specific aspects of the system. A reform of the taxation system will need to be just that: reform of the system as an entity and not just mere piecemeal amendments. It is the 'fire-fighter' approach of amending the tax laws piece by piece that has been the cause of much of the present complex mess. Reform of the system as a whole is not a simple task. It is not just the task of finding a simple, efficient and equitable system. Although reform of the tax system 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. There will also be ramifications for the business community due to the effects upon the legal status, liabilities and responsibilities of legal entities such as corporations and trusts. There will, of course, be philosophical and political considerations which will be taken into account. 'Real politic' will intrude on any kind of reform. Although it may not be a desirable consideration, it must be realised that such 'real life' pressures do exist. The Australian Democrats do not seek to pronounce what should, or should not, be considered, nor in what form the committee's considerations should be. We, as do the other political parties, have our view of how the taxation system should be reformed. This Bill, however, does not seek to promote that view. This Bill does not deal with the nature of taxation reform. It merely establishes a procedure and a framework for reform to occur. This Government has talked of tax reform, as have the Opposition parties. The Australian Democrats are not content to merely talk. We are not prepared to ' pass the buck' and assist in perpetuating the piece-meal amending that is occurring. I, therefore, present this Bill in the expectation that the Government and the Opposition parties will honour their rhetoric and will support this Australian Democrats' initiative. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.16) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- PASSPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for amendment of the existing passports legislation in three main areas: To prohibit the issue of Australian passports to people who are not Australian citizens and to remove the present distinction in the Passports Act between British subjects who are not Australian citizens and other non-citizens; secondly, to simplify the procedures whereby passports may be issued to unmarried children in those exceptional circumstances where they are unable to comply with the existing provisions contained within the Act relating to the obtaining of consent; and thirdly to make certain decisions under the Passports Act and Passport Regulations subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For reasons that have now become historical the authority to issue passports to British subjects was included in the original 1938 Passports Act. It is now several years since Australian passports were issued regularly to British subjects. In rare emergencies documents of identity are still issued to British subjects until such time as they have been able to obtain a passport from their own national representatives. This will continue; and the measure therefore will not affect Australia's ability to meet its obligations to provide consular assistance, including the issue of a travel document, to citizens of Commonwealth countries who are unable to obtain the assistance of their own national representatives. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in its 'Interim Report No . 2-Passports' recommended that issue of Australian passports be limited to Australians, to help to provide tighter controls over the issue of Australian passports and to assist in establishing the identity of passport applicants. The problems involved in the issue of passports to children may be complex. The section controlling the issue of passports to children, section 7A, was included in the Act in 1979 as a result of concern felt by the Government of the day over the use of Australian passports as the travel document in which children were removed from Australia against the wishes of a person entitled to guardianship or custody of, or access to, the child. However, unforeseen difficulties have arisen in the administration of section 7A. For example, frequently a person whose consent is required cannot be located by reasonable effort, and the alternative of obtaining a court order to permit the child to leave Australia may be unreasonably expensive. Again, many of these problems involve applications by children who are outside Australia. In these cases the consent requirement must be weighed against the denial to an Australian citizen of the facility to return to Australia. The inability of many applicants to obtain the required consents has led to administrative delays resulting in the frequent necessity to seek Ministerial approval to override the consent provisions and issue passports in deserving cases. To streamline this procedure, this Bill proposes to insert in the Act a provision by which the Minister may designate a senior officer of the Department who may, having regard to the circumstances of each case and guidelines laid down by the Minister, approve the issue of a passport where, because of circumstances, a required consent cannot be obtained. It should be stressed that decisions by a designated senior officer will be made under strict guidelines, will be subject to reversal by the Minister and, like other decisions made under the Act, will now be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I intend issuing the following guidelines to the approved senior officer who would be designated by me: Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Sub-section 7A (6) of the Passports Act 1938. The approved Senior Officer may waive the requirement for the consent of a person entitled under a law of the Commonwealth or a State or a Territory to custody or guardianship of, or access to, a prescribed minor for the purposes of Section 7A of the Passports Act 1938 in the following circumstances: (a) the person whose consent is required (i) is medically incapable of providing written consent, (ii) has had no contact with the child for a substantial period of time, or (iii) cannot be contacted or located within a reasonable time; or (b) there is a legitimate need for a child who is already overseas to return to Australia or to travel to another country. There is a broad agreement that decisions under the Passports Act should be open to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Any decision to issue, renew or endorse a passport, or to refuse to do so, or to cancel a passport or endorsement, may be subject to review. However, where the Minister in taking a decision under paragraphs 7E (1) (b) or 8 (1B) (b) of the Passports Act has certified, at the time of taking that decision, that Australia's international relations were the determining factor in that decision, the Tribunal may only affirm the decision or remit it to the Minister for reconsideration in the light of the Tribunal's findings. It is intended that in these cases where the Minister rejects the recommendation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal he should table in Parliament his reasons for that rejection. The proposed measures are not expected to have financial implications for the Department. Nor is it anticipated that the volume of applications for review will place undue pressure on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill makes a number of other useful procedural and drafting changes, which will be evident to honourable senators. I do not need to delay the Senate by elaborating on them at this stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate. REGISTRATION OF DEATHS ABROAD BILL 1984 The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the registration in Australia of the deaths, occurring overseas, of Australian citizens, Australian residents and people in receipt of Australian social security benefits, whose deaths cannot be registered under existing State or Territory legislation. It will also enable Australia to conform to accepted international practice by registering the deaths of these and other persons which occur in international airspace or waters, on board Australian registered ships or aircraft or on board ships or aircraft travelling to and from Australia. Registration of deaths occurring within Australia is a State and Territory responsibility. There is, however, no legislation covering the registration in Australia of deaths which occur outside Australia. Legislation does exist, both Commonwealth and State, providing for such deaths to be registered in certain circumstances. Most States for example, provide for the registration of deaths occurring outside the State on ships, and in some cases aircraft, proceeding to that State. These registration schemes leave a number of potential gaps. I should emphasise that only deaths which cannot at present be registered in any other Australian jurisdiction will be registrable under this Bill although it will be no bar to registration that the death has been or may be registered in a country overseas. Although no conclusive statistics are available it is known that more than 200 Australians die overseas each year. Over the years, a number of deaths have occurred outside Australia which have not been able to be registered, either in Australia or another country. There are at present about 12 cases in which the deaths of Australians who died outside Australia cannot be registered. As a result, the personal representatives of such deceased persons have experienced considerable difficulties in winding up the estates because no death certificates can be issued in Australia. Lack of capacity to register deaths abroad also provides opportunities for social security and passports frauds. There are instances of social security benefits continuing to be paid even though the person entitled has died overseas. A registration scheme will also assist the Australian Bureau of Statistics by providing more complete data on deaths, which are an essential component of population estimates. The Bill creates a Register of Deaths Abroad and makes provision for the appointment of a Registrar. The Registrar, Australian diplomatic and consular officers and the officials of any country authorised to perform consular functions on behalf of Australia are specified to be registering officers. It is expected that the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages will be appointed Registrar of Deaths Abroad. Disappearances from ships and aircraft are deemed to be deaths where a registering officer is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that death has occurred. For the purposes of the Bill, space craft are considered to be aircraft. Deaths which have occurred before the Bill comes into force may be registered, so that many of the difficulties which led to the introduction of this scheme may be resolved. Since registration will have a number of significant legal effects, relating, for example, to the winding up of estates, persons having an interest in the contents of the Register may apply for searches, copies and extracts. Provision is made for the Register and copies and extracts of the Register to be admissible in evidence. The Registrar may, upon application or on his own motion, correct both the Register and certificates of death abroad already issued, and he may also cancel registration. Interested persons are to be given notice if that is practicable that the Registrar proposes to amend or cancel registration of a death and they may object to the proposed amendment or cancellation. In view of the legal consequences which may flow from decisions by the Registrar or registering officer, such decisions are subject to the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The financial considerations of this measure are not expected to be great. There will be no need for additional staff in either the office of the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages or in diplomatic and consular missions overseas. In the first year of operation it will be necessary to establish the Register, print death certificates and publicise the facility. The estimated cost of this is $30,000. Annually recurring costs are estimated to be approximately $5,000. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.16) —At the request of the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, and pursuant to his contingent notice of motion, I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.17) —At the request of Senator Chaney, I move: That after consideration of Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 (Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 (No.2); Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984), intervening business be postponed till after consideration of General Business Notice of Motion No. 135, standing in the name of Senator Reid relating to the appointment of a proposed Select Committee on Video Censorship and General Business, Notice of Motion No. 113, standing in the name of Senator Reid relating to 'X'-rated videos. For the information of the Senate, Order of the Day No. 1 is the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). Notice of Motion No. 113 seeks a moratorium on the importation into Australia of X-rated and other forms of violent video material. Notice of Motion No. 135 relates to the appointment of a proposed Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship. I move this motion to enable the Senate, before it rises in the near future, to deal with a matter which has been of very considerable importance and interest to the Senate for most of the sittings this year. The Senate will recall lengthy debates in this place in the autumn sittings with regard to the disallowance of regulations which were brought into effect during the summer recess period, on 1 February this year. These were regulations to amend the Customs regulations dealing with the importation into Australia of pornographic video material, and amendments to aspects of the Customs regulations dealing with film censorship and the control of such material by the Film Censorship Board, at the same time as the introduction of an ordinance in the Australian Capital Territory which provided for a classification system of such material and its sale and distribution in the Australian Capital Territory in accordance with that system. The regulations and the ordinance were to give effect to what was said by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) to be a new uniform scheme relating to the importation, sale and distribution in Australia of material in video form-that is, discs or cassettes-which under the existing legislation would be offensive, obscene, pornographic and so forth. The whole object of this exercise was to reduce considerably the existing controls on the importation and distribution in Australia of material of an obscene character, or what has now become better known as X-rated material, or hard core pornographic material, which previously had to be registered by the Film Censorship Board within its own standards which were applied largely to the classification of films for public viewing. The idea of the new scheme was to provide a much more permissive scheme in relation to videos for private use, particularly for home use. The Attorney-General made it clear that under these regulations very little material would, in fact, be intercepted at the Customs barrier and declared illegal to be imported. At the same time similar legislation was to be passed in the States and the Northern Territory. That legislation was to provide a more liberal classification system for such material, including the availability of an X rating which includes a much more permissive type of material than would ever have been included under the existing film ratings, even the R classification. The Senate did not disallow the regulations because of certain undertakings that were given to amend them, which undertakings were carried out, although the Opposition pressed for the disallowance because in its view the Federal-State complementary scheme had not been brought into existence. In fact, that has not occurred. The most recent meeting of the Federal and State Ministers responsible for censorship has revealed the total shambles of any uniform scheme. Five States out of six have repudiated the legislation providing for an X rating. The Ministers are now scratching around trying to find some other scheme. On their track record to date that seems to be very far down the track. On 7 June the Opposition, by way of a motion of mine, proposed that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament be established to consider the whole question. By that stage very widespread community concern was being expressed about the whole scheme. In particular there was a concern that great quantities of this material were coming into Australia as a result of the changes made to the Customs regulations which took effect from 1 February this year. That proposal was passed by the Senate and was sent to the House of Representatives. Before the House rose for the winter recess on 8 June the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, said that the Government would be sympathetic to the proposal. Indeed, when the House resumed for the Budget session on 21 August this year, the Special Minister of State proposed a Government motion for a joint select committee, which was a rather strange procedure because the House already had the Senate's proposal before it and had had it before it since 8 June. Nevertheless, the Government proposed its own committee seeming, I suppose, to attract some favourable publicity for itself. The Government did receive some favourable publicity. Indeed many people in the community believe that a joint committee has been set up. Nothing could be further from the truth because the Government, having made this tactical move of proposing the establishment of a committee, did not do anything further about it for about six weeks. It did nothing until last week, just before the House of Representatives rose for the coming election, when it passed a resolution and transmitted it to the Senate. However, the Government in the Senate has not brought that resolution on for debate. The Government has simply been stalling on this proposal ever since the Senate put it forward last June. It is now too late to set up a joint committee because the House of Representatives has adjourned and Parliament will be dissolved next week. Nothing further can be done about the matter until the new Parliament meets next year. In the meantime there is still no joint Federal-State scheme. Great debate is still going on between the Ministers responsible for censorship as to what they will do about the problem. There is also the problem I mentioned: The market in this country is now flooded with quantities of this pornographic material which has been allowed to be imported because of the permissive Customs regulations which were introduced earlier this year. Widespread community outrage has been expressed about the present situation. There is great community support for the setting up of a committee. In view of the fact that the Government has not been prepared to do anything further about the proposal to establish a joint committee, even though it supported the proposal, I believe that the alternative proposal put forward by Senator Reid in her notice of motion No. 135 should now be debated by the Senate , as should her notice of motion No. 113 which calls for a moratorium on the present permissive laws until the proposed committee has looked into the whole matter and reported to the Parliament. At that stage the Parliament can determine the appropriate laws relating to this material. Apart from debating a motion of disallowance, Parliament has not addressed itself to the problem. It should do so, in my view, only after proper committee consideration. For those reasons, on behalf of the Opposition I propose that today, before the Senate we should consider Senator Reid's notices of motion, given as a result of the total failure of the Government to follow through on this issue with any rational proposals of its own, even though it has publicly said it would support the setting up of a committee. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.28) —I am not sure why Senator Durack found it necessary to embark upon the substantive discussion of the merits of these motions at this stage since it has been indicated to him that the Government will not oppose the bringing on of the motion to debate at least the establishment of a Senate select committee. We are not all that impressed by the urgency of bringing on the other motion to which he refers, but we will not contest that in the interests of a quick dispatch of the Senate's business. I simply make the point that it has never been the Government's intention to hinder in any way the establishment of an appropriate parliamentary committee. There have been some technical difficulties in getting the resolution before the Senate earlier than this because of the pressure of business in the House of Representatives. Its members are slightly less besotted with the urgency of this topic than is the case with honourable senators opposite it seems. I foreshadow now that, consistent with our attitude towards the establishment of a committee, we will not oppose the establishment straight away of a Senate committee in order to enable this matter to be dealt with expeditiously, submissions to be invited and some work to commence over the recess period. I would hope that in the light of that flagging by the Government of its attitude to this matter we can make the debate when it does come on-I understand that it is proposed that it should come on straight after the debate on the health Bills is concluded-rather shorter than it might otherwise have been. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. upon which Senator Peter Baume had moved by way of amendment: 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'. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.30) —Last evening we heard a great deal about there being deficiencies in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. We heard a great deal of mock indignation, particularly from Senator Peter Baume, who was a latecomer to the list of speakers and who clearly saw this debate as an opportunity to suggest that the Government's efforts in respect of this legislation were designed to hurt and harm the aged members of our community. Of course, the situation is to the contrary. It is quite the opposite of what Senator Baume and other members of the Opposition said it was in the debate last evening. The Government is about rectifying the grave problems that confront the Australian community with the aging of our population. It is about changing the emphasis from institutionalising the aged and the frail in nursing homes for prolonged periods to taking steps by government to encourage by legislation and financial assistance those persons who are able to do so to remain in their own homes and domestic environments. It was apparent from the tone of the Opposition's contributions to the debate last evening that it does not and will not understand the emphasis that the Government's strategy places on that important change in direction. When the Opposition had its long periods in government it took no steps to put a different direction upon what was obviously taking place in the aged care area and accepted the inevitability of institutionalising those people who had reached advanced years and had no alternative but to be placed in nursing homes. However, this Government, in establishing an office of aged care and in taking other legislative steps, minor though they may be at this stage, is placing emphasis on encouraging aged persons to live within their own homes. They will be given government assistance in the form of home help and community care arrangements designed to fulfil two objectives, the first being to offer to aged persons a much more congenial environment in their latter years of life and the second being to save taxpayers' money in respect of the increasing costs involved in operating nursing homes. Of course, inevitably there will be some resistance to those changed proposals. Nevertheless, the Government has shown that it has a caring attitude, as does my Department, the Department of Veterans ' Affairs, in respect of repatriation beneficiaries. In this legislation we are offering positive and effective new policies which, in totality, will vastly improve the environment for our ever-increasing aged population. Having established that emphasis, the legislation we are debating today takes us down a new track. It takes us away from the inevitability of the policies of the previous Liberal-National Party Government. The amendments to the National Health Act currently before the Senate are an important part of this Government's overall program of care for the frail and aged. Clearly, the Opposition does not understand or appreciate that. The changes will mean in respect of my Department that any person receiving repatriation or Commonwealth nursing home benefits will still be entitled to those benefits during absences totalling up to 28 days in a 12-month period. That is a degree of flexibility that did not exist in the previous legislation. They will be liable only for the existing patient contribution of $13 a day as against the $40 and $50 a day bed holding fee that they currently face. As my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, pointed out in debating these Bills, there are no savings in this measure. The program for the aged will operate more effectively and more efficiently. It is not to be seen as a cost saving exercise. It is to be seen as a compassionate step being taken by this Government. Not only will these arrangements result in a substantial improvement in the quality of life of many nursing home patients; they will also constitute an incentive for nursing homes to admit short term patients to temporarily vacated beds-an issue which is completely ignored by Opposition speakers. This will provide relief for the carers of aged persons who , as we all know, are often under great pressure looking after their patients in their homes. Also, because such respite care provided through my Department generally means as things stand the placement of repatriation beneficiaries in expensive private hospitals, the $120,000 gross cost of this measure for repatriation beneficiaries is reduced dramatically to an estimated net cost of a mere $13,000 . This measure is one small part of the Government's overall welfare and aged care programs for the older members of our community. An indication of our commitment to that principle is that we will establish a $30m program over the next three years to put into effect a more beneficial home help scheme and home and community care arrangements. Of course, in this legislation we are increasing the amount of subsidies to our Meals on Wheels organisations and to homes for aged and disabled persons. These programs have to some extent been cruelly misrepresented by certain groups in the community. I and my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, have had to face a bitter and unscrupulous campaign of disinformation spearheaded by the Federal Opposition and others to the effect that we have singled out the aged for harsh and special treatment, whereas in fact this legislation improves the quality of life of those very people. However , I and honourable senators opposite know that once these programs have been implemented-once the assets test has been applied and pensioners see that the great majority of them will be utterly unaffected by it; as we continue to approach our goal of raising pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings- this campaign against the Government's program for aged persons will collapse completely. We will be seen to be providing the sort of assistance and recognition for our aged persons which any government worth its name should provide to help those members of our community. Also on occasions we have stated our view that this campaign has been orchestrated to some extent by extremist elements in our society. It is on this point that I would like now to comment very briefly. Probably few people noticed a small item on an inside page of last Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald headed 'Wentworth to head Grey Power ticket'. Fewer still would have read to the last paragraph, where Mr Wentworth's running mates were listed. One is the actress Carol Raye, who is at present or was a member and a long time close associate of the New South Wales Liberal Party. Another is a Mr Robert Clarke. I imagine hardly any Sydney Morning Herald reader or member of parliament would register any close association with that name, but honourable senators should know that Robert Clarke is President of the Immigration Control Association, a body which some may recall mounted a vicious racist campaign against Al Grassby in the seat of Riverina during the 1974 election. Mr Clarke migrated to Australia from South Africa and has for some years been a rabid campaigner in Australia on behalf of the racist South African regime. So, while the Government is taking steps to assist aged persons, there are campaigns by such elements both in this place and outside of it designed to create fear and confusion amongst the aging members of our community. In 1980 the Immigration Control Association formed an offshoot body, the Progressive Conservative Party, and in 1981 these two bodies merged with the fascist National Alliance to form the Progressive Nationalist Party, with Clarke as president. After a major ruction in 1982, the Progressive Nationalist Party reconstituted itself as National Action. National Action is, of course, the organisation which is at the forefront of the current campaign of race hatred directed against Indo-Chinese immigrants. The national organiser of National Action, and before that of the National Alliance and the Progressive Nationalist Party, is a Mr Jim Saleam. Saleam was convicted in the mid-1970s of attempting to firebomb the East Wind Bookshop in Brisbane and, at about the same time, was photographed in full Nazi regalia with the notorious Skull. His attitude to non- white citizens, and to the political process generally, is perhaps best encapsulated in this quote from the Melbourne Age of 25 July: I saw recently some Vietnamese was clubbed down with a baseball bat. So what. They would have been better off going up the road and finding Bob Hawke and giving it to him. Saleam also described Joseph Goebbels, in an article in the National Action newspaper Audacity, as a genius. He urged his readers to study Goebbels's life, as an example to inspire the right measure of fanaticism among his followers. I note, incidentally, that he is currently up on charges of insurance fraud and breaking and entering. The foregoing is a far from comprehensive survey of just one small part of the neo-fascist and quasi-terrorist right wing fringe in this country, but it illustrates I believe the capacity of such groups to infiltrate and influence movements that seem respectable and responsible to outsiders. It indicates how they seek to trade on the fear and confusion often developed amongst people when legislation is debated in this place. One part of the web that I have not touched on is the role of the League of Rights in this whole exercise. I would, however, mention that it is alleged that W. C. Wentworth, the leader of the Grey Power ticket, is or was the New South Wales President of the World Freedom League, which is the parent body of the League of Rights. Perhaps in this context it is not so much-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Senator Gietzelt, I draw your attention to the legislation being debated. We have allowed debate to range far and wide but I think your remarks now are a little beyond what is relevant to this legislation. Please bring them back to the Bills. Senator GIETZELT —Mr Acting Deputy President, I think this is related to the legislation because, in this context it is not so much a case of grey power as it is of white power. I think it is rather disgraceful we should have debates used by outside organisations to create confusion and concern in the Australian community. This legislation is positive legislation. It is legislation designed to assist the frail and the aged in the Australian community, whether they be veterans or social security beneficiaries. The whole emphasis of the Government' s strategy is to provide an environment in which our frail and aged persons will be protected from those who seek to exploit them. It is in that context that I referred to the extra-parliamentary activities taking place in the current election campaign which are designed, I believe, to play on the fears and confusion of people who ought not to be placed at peril by the tactics of such groups that are obviously aided and abetted even by some members of the Opposition. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.44) —Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that we are discussing cognately the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. It is in relation to those matters that I wish to speak. In particular, I wish to review some aspects of these relevant matters that relate to the Australian Capital Territory. I think most people are well aware at the moment of the run-down of hospital services in the Australian Capital Territory. For example, there have been many instances of very late cancellation of elective surgery. Also clearly there is inadequate nursing staff to give patient care and there seems to be an inability to attract and keep nursing staff in the hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory, at least in the government hospitals. There are also allegations of degenerating ante-natal and post-natal care. I could speak more on these issues but I wish specifically to deal with the problems of the aging population in Canberra because they are most relevant to the matters before us this morning. I think we could sum up the rest of the health system at present by saying that it is in a mess and that it needs the attention of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in the way that I suggested in a notice of motion that I placed on the Notice Paper earlier this week. There are quite serious problems for many families who have as one of their members a person who is presently classified as frail aged. There are many groups of aged people, and the people in those groups vary considerably. I remind listeners that the office of aged care has not yet been set up, and that too is relevant to the matters that we are discussing. During the last election campaign the Liberal Government promised to establish an office of aged care upon being returned to government, and the Australian Labor Party also said that it would establish an office of aged care. Many of the matters raised in this debate over the last two days may well have been looked at quite differently if in fact the office of aged care had been established some 18 months ago and had been able to get on with the job of analysing the needs of the aged, because there are such varied groups-from the people who retire between 60 and 65 years of age to the very frail aged who are quite elderly. Of course some fall into the frail aged category at a much earlier stage. To look at the aged as just a group of people who have retired is quite wrong. We need to be sure that resources are spent wisely and actually service needs. I personally think that it is wrong to have the office of aged care under the Minister for Health because the implication of that would be that all the aged are in poor health. It is also wrong for it to be within the Department of Social Security because the implication of that would be that they are all welfare cases. There is a wide range of people with a wide variety of needs, and perhaps the office ought to be established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which would indicate that it is a broadly based office. Two Budgets have passed since the promise to establish an office of aged care and, as I see it, it appears to be no nearer than in March of 1983. That is a matter of great regret and there is a risk that ad hoc decisions will be made as problems for the aged arise but no real solution will be found. Let us look at some of the problems in the Australian Capital Territory. Recently the dilemma of one of my constituents was brought to my notice by the grandson of an elderly woman. This woman, who was then 99 and has since turned 100 years of age, was living with her daughter, I think aged 71. She needed pretty constant care and for a long time the daughter was able to give it. But the daughter became ill-I think it was influenza or something like that; certainly it was debilitating-and it was necessary for the mother to get care on a 24-hour basis. She was put in hospital and, of course, told that she would be able to stay for only 35 days. What happens to this woman at the end of the 35 days? It is clear that the 71-year-old daughter is no longer physically able to give the care that her mother needs. Her mother is not sick; she is merely in the category of being frail aged and in need of assistance. The older woman was approved for urgent nursing home care. That approval was given by a doctor at the Woden Valley Hospital. Of course the family was told that that care would not be available until someone died and a bed became available. That is the situation that exists in Canberra at present. I do not deny the benefit of the domiciliary services that enable people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible. I totally support them as the first line of assistance, but there seems in this debate to be a complete lack of concern for the fact that there are people who are frail aged and who will eventually need care beyond what their families can give them, if they have families, or beyond what can be given by the domiciliary services which are so valuable to those who are able to stay in their own homes. The case I mentioned is not exaggerated; we have had many such cases and I believe the Minister has totally neglected his responsibilities to the Australian Capital Territory in this area of his portfolio. At present in the Australian Capital Territory 102 people are assessed as in need of 24-hour care, but they are unable to obtain it and live in other circumstances. Some 35 of these people are now accommodated in acute care hospital beds. We need to look at the charade that surrounds Morling Lodge, a nursing home in Canberra, a very pleasant place that looks after its patients well and is well-managed and well-run. It is an absolutely incredible situation. Morling Lodge built some extensions as a result of which, and following a change in plan, the Lodge finished up with 107 nursing home beds. But there were many technical and red-tape problems and there was a saga of correspondence. Only 106 beds can be occupied because only that number of beds has been licensed for Morling Lodge. As honourable senators can imagine, a great deal of correspondence has been written on this matter and the Minister in one of his more recent contributions to the subject said that the Lodge could not be used even for emergency purposes because such a situation could be open to abuse. One needs to go back a little into the history of the matter. In January this year Morling Lodge was issued with a certificate stating that it was licensed for 107 beds. As one would imagine, in view of the crisis of nursing home care in the Australian Capital Territory, the extra bed was filled. However, by 1 March the Lodge had received a letter saying that the certificate was incorrect, and that the figure should have been not 107 but 106 beds. It was said that the bed had been filled illegally and should be vacated forthwith. The problem was that the patient in it had nowhere to go until there was a death at Morling Lodge and the patient was able to be put into one of the Lodge's other beds. That has occurred, of course; and to this day the 107th bed remains empty. Another 23 beds are empty in the Australian Capital Territory because of the adverse nursing salaries that exist and continue to exist. There are 12 empty beds at the Allambee Nursing Home and 11 empty beds at the Jindalee Nursing Home . Those beds are empty because of inadequate nursing staff. In the meantime, this pathetic situation continues as to the remainder of the 102 aged people needing 24-hour care, many of whom are presently housed outside the Australian Capital Territory. This is traumatic for the families concerned, and particularly so for the elderly people who have had to be placed outside the Territory. Some 16 of the people who need 24-hour care and who are awaiting nursing home beds in the Australian Capital Territory are in hospital beds interstate. Ten are in nursing homes outside the Australian Capital Territory-in Young, Yass and Goulburn. They have been moved from here out to those places and I suggest that that is very distressing for them and their families. Twenty-seven are being cared for at home in the Australian Capital Territory. One can imagine the stress to the families and to the old people knowing that they need the sort of 24-hour care that is provided in a nursing home, but also knowing that they are forced to stay in their present home simply because such care is not available. There are a further eight elderly people who are at home outside the Australian Capital Territory, in Queanbeyan, who are in a similar situation to the other 27 to whom I have already referred. By now, it will be realised that there are six more people to be dealt with of the 102, three of whom are housed in hostels in the Australian Capital Territory and three of whom are in hostels outside the Territory. Although the hostels are adequate for many elderly people, they do not have the facilities or staff to deal with the frail aged who may well be incontinent and need special attention and care. The hostels provide a valuable service for people at a particular stage as do the many other types of old folks homes, but there comes a time when the frail aged need special nursing home care . In the Australian Capital Territory, 102 frail aged persons are not able to get that care and have to stay where they are and wait. I remind the Senate that at Morling Lodge one bed remains empty because, according to the Minister for Health, it might be subject to abuse. I suggest that those who are being abused are the families of an aged person in the distressing situation of not being able to get the care he needs and the frail aged person who might be able to use that bed if the Minister took a somewhat more sympathetic approach. Some steps are now being taken to correct the nurse shortage in the Australian Capital Territory, and not before time. It is well known that 23 nursing home beds are available and could be used if nurses were available to look after the people. We are told constantly that this is a Government which looks after people and puts the care of the needy, the sick and the disadvantaged first. As far as the frail aged are concerned, I suggest to the Government that it do something about the situation and show that it cares, because the facts rather speak for themselves. At present in our community 430 nursing home beds are available and are being fully utilised for a population of 9,480 people over the age of 65 years. It is well known that this community is aging rapidly; a number of aged people have come to Canberra to live with their children at a time when they can no longer fully look after themselves in their own homes in other States. That is perfectly reasonable, because people have moved to Canberra in the course of their employment in the Public Service. It is inevitable that their aged parents will come here and eventually may need the nursing home care that is necessary for the frail aged. Because of the shortage of nursing home beds, no beds are available for respite care for those who are looked after by their families but who need some time away from them now and again either for a holiday, because of sickness, or for all the other reasons for which respite care is reasonable and necessary. It is another area that needs development. Who really cares for the carers? The Council on the Ageing in the Australian Capital Territory has set up a careers group so that those who provide virtually 24-hour care for people living with them are able to meet and discuss their problems and perhaps help each other with advice. It is a very valuable group the Council has established. There are 4.7 acute beds per thousand population in the Australian Capital Territory and 6.2 for the rest of Australia. Thus it can be seen that more beds for the frail aged need to be provided in this community. The Office of Aged Care perhaps could have sorted out a number of these matters and given the sort of advice that would have enabled the problems to be solved and decisions to be made to provide services actually needed for all those involved. We should look at other ways of funding nursing home beds. It may well be that it could be made attractive for superannuation funds and others to provide the capital to build nursing homes and subsidise those who are in them on a different basis which I believe would cost less than the capital cost involved at present. The Office of Aged Care could look into this sort of thing and find out what money would be available. It seems quite absurd that the licensing system of nursing home beds is not related to the needs of the community which would use them. At present the statistics show that it is likely to get worse in the Australian Capital Territory and put more stress on more people, many of whom are not really qualified to look after people on a 24-hour basis. With the best will in the world, and trying as hard as they might, they cannot give the same type of care as properly trained staff who know exactly how to cope. My contribution to this debate today is to highlight the problem with which we are faced. I ask the Government to take steps to find the right solutions and to establish the Office of Aged Care as a matter of urgency on the basis that I suggested-to make decisions for all those who fall into the category of retirement onwards, and not to look at the problem as something that relates merely to those who are in ill health or without financial resources, because that leaves out a lot of people and tackles the problem quite wrongly. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.00) —The Senate is debating cognately the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Yesterday and today, naturally enough, the debate has turned to the Health Bill because of some very serious and very obvious defects in it. I want in the time available to me to analyse factually that Bill and its part in the Medicare system. Any factual analysis will show that the Bill is part of the growing restrictive nature of Medicare, the restriction of the services available to the patient. The contribution of the Australian Labor Party to the debate has shown an insensitive, unfeeling approach to the problems of the aged and, indeed, a lack of compassion in its practical work in helping the aged. Let me see whether I can put this factually. First of all, under the Fraser Liberal Government a patient's stay in a public hospital, with expenses covered, before a specific review was made, was 60 days. That is factual. The Hawke Labor Government has reduced the period before review to 35 days. That again is factual. Under the Fraser Liberal Government the test to be applied in the review encompassed four different considerations of the patient, the patient's condition and the patient's treatment. Under the Hawke Government there is one test, the test of acute illness, and no other. That is purely factual. Under the Hawke Government a draconian penalty-$10,000 or five years' gaol-has been imposed on a doctor making a false declaration. One has to ask: Why the draconian penalty? Senator Grimes —What was the penalty under the Fraser Government. Can you tell me? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest to Senator Grimes that following his behaviour last night he ought to refrain from interjecting at all. In my time I have never heard a more disgraceful performance by any Minister. Senator Grimes can have his say when he replies. Today I am putting down the facts. If I say something that is not a fact, let Senator Grimes when he sums up correct these things. This Senate saw last night the behaviour of a Minister which was an arrant disgrace to the Westminster system of government, an arrant abuse by a Minister of his privileges. I have said that under the Fraser Liberal Government the period before review was 60 days. Under the Hawke Government that period was reduced to 35 days. That is a fact. Under the Fraser Government there were four tests and under the Hawke Government there is one test. That is a fact. There is no question of interjection or catcalls on this matter. I am stating the simple facts relating to the restrictions being imposed. A doctor making a judgment on whether a condition is acute or sub-acute, whether or not compassion for the patient ought to come into that judgment, is forced by a draconian penalty of $10,000 or five years, imprisonment to obey the strict letter of the law. That again is a further restriction. Fact No. 4 is that there has been a freeze by the Hawke Government on the number of nursing homes. It says that it wants to attract people to domiciliary care rather than to leave them in nursing homes. It is an argument that does not relate to this Bill. There is no question that this Bill refers to people who might receive domiciliary care from their families or visiting nurses. What is dealt with in the legislation is not a question of domiciliary care. The fact is that there is a very serious shortage of nursing homes. This is a very ugly situation-one that speaker after speaker from the Labor Party has rejected. Virtually every member of parliament must have been approached in recent weeks by people who have the great dilemma of a relative or friend of the family being discharged from a hospital, having no opportunity to go into a nursing home and therefore having nowhere to go. Of course, that disguises the fact that many people who are confronted by this situation have no relatives or friends who can take them in. This can be very serious in regard to psychiatric patients. Therefore, what we have said is true; there is a tremendous restriction in the system. Let me demonstrate this situation. If ever an outrage were perpetuated on the Australian public, it is the advertisement 'Why Medicare is good for the system' . That has been published-I hold it up so that the Senate can see it-day after day by the Hawke Government. It would be correct if the title were 'Why Medicare is good for the socialist system', because certainly Medicare has restricted the services available to the patient. The Trade Practices Commission could not do other than say that this is a blatant fraud. I will read to the Senate what the advertisement states, and let the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) deny it. Everybody knows that this Government outlawed gap insurance-the right of an ordinary person to insure himself for the difference between the amount that the doctor charged and the amount that was recovered under Medicare. Everybody knows that that is true. Everybody knows that the prevention of this practice, this duress, is unique in the free world. This advertisement is a fraud. It states: . . . of course, you still have the freedom to buy whatever private health insurance you feel necessary. I want to take out gap insurance and so do millions of Australians. I do not have the freedom to buy whatever private health insurance I feel is necessary. The rest of the advertisement is also untrue. It states: You can choose to have just that little bit of extra cover, or you can cover yourself for as much as you like. Either way, it's your choice. You can decide how much health insurance you want, and how much you want to pay for it. That is a direct and deliberate untruth. It is not true that one can cover oneself by buying whatever private health insurance one feels is necessary. If that advertisement were brought before the Trade Practices Commission and tested under the Trade Practices Act it would be rejected as a gross piece of deception of the public. I challenge the Minister to deny that. How can he deny that millions of Australians are not allowed to choose whatever health insurance they desire? He knows, and the Government knows, that they are not allowed to do so. The advertisement also states: Medicare has given every Australian the essentials of health cover as a right, not a privilege. This includes visits to any doctor, including referred specialists and no- charge accommodation in a public hospital with treatment by hospital-appointed specialists. Senator Peter Baume —For how long? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Baume, who is a doctor, interjects: 'For how long?'. I remind the Senate that two things are involved. First of all, the claim that is made in the advertisement is not true. The length of waiting lists in public hospitals throughout Australia is outrageous. Figures have been given that in Victoria alone 30,000 people are on the waiting lists for elective surgery and that is the pattern right throughout New South Wales and Australia. What a deception it is to say to people 'Come under Medicare and you can get free hospital treatment and all these benefits' when in fact one has to wait not just weeks or months but even years for elective surgery for hernias and hysterectomies and other basic essential operations such as orthopaedic surgery. We have the tragic situation in respect of cardiac and open heart surgery where the delays are such that people have died waiting for surgery. So it is a hollow mockery to come before us and say that Medicare has widened the ability and facilities of patients. It is a hollow mockery for the advertisement to say that a person can get free hospitalisation because we know, and Senator Baume made it perfectly clear, that that is not true. After a certain period that ceases. Indeed, should a patient be in a hospital after that date a very substantial charge is made which gobbles up that person's pension. So what we have now is a new development restricting Medicare. Of course the Government made a gross misjudgment in its attack on hospital doctors, particularly in its attack of section 17 of the legislation. It is fascinating to note that the arguments which the Opposition put in this place some months ago-I think in April of this year-against that legislation and which were rejected by the Government, have now been accepted in broad substance by the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The Penington Committee was set up only as a result of the arguments of the Opposition which exposed the great dangers, not to the doctors but to the patients, of what was being done. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) intervened and a grave potential injustice has now been largely avoided. The situation was one of duress to the patient-that the patient would be punished if he or she did not check first with the doctor in terms of private or public health insurance. The patient was being subjected to duress. There was never any question that the unequivocal offer in the advertisement that the people of Australia can get medical treatment free upon authentic and justified demand was true. By any test at all that is not the case. By any test, we do not have freedom to insure. So that advertisement is a downright untruth. We do not have access to hospitals because of the enormous waiting lists. We were, in fact, faced with the threat of duress in our doctor-patient relationship at the hospital specialist level until the intervention of the Penington Committee. This situation has not yet been cleared up. The people of Australia are being penalised in another way because of the quaint way in which the consumer price index registers indirect taxes but not direct taxes. Although health insurance is now costing the individual Australian more because insurance payments are taken out of wages and not out of the pocket and because this is a direct tax and not an indirect tax, the consumer price index does not register the charge. So, a book entry has been made to discount inflation. The Australian people have had a fraud, a medifraud, worked upon them . They have been told that inflation has fallen by 2.6 per cent when in fact nothing of the sort has happened. All that has happened is that the Medicare levy is regarded now as a direct tax and not as an indirect tax. Of course, the pensioners will get less in their future increases in pensions because of this artificial deflation of the consumer price index. Wherever we test the situation -and we test this legislation-we see that what has happened is like the evil that happened in the United Kingdom and has started to happen in Canada under growing socialism: Governments, faced with the sort of enormous and uncontrolled splurge in costs that Medicare will bring, start putting penalties on doctors, and start restricting the number of hospital beds and, therefore, the intake of patients. We have in New South Wales at this moment what is virtually an industrial strike without the commonsense of sorting out what the cost of a sessional payment ought to be. There is a squeeze all the time. There is a squeeze in respect of bulk billing. The aim is to try to get bulk billing to such a point that it is accepted by the patient and, therefore, puts us on the way to getting doctors overall to accept bulk billing-an easy step to socialisation or nationalisation. In these pieces of legislation we have these things: A reduction in the stay before review of a patient from 60 days under the Fraser Government to 35 days under the Hawke Government; a change from four reasonable tests, which gave the doctor and the staff an opportunity to deal with the cases that demanded special attention, to one very rigid test; and a threat to the doctor that, unless he is precisely within the red tape, he will be punished in a most drastic way. One has to ask oneself: What sort of mind does that? Here is a Minister who, in respect of the assets test, has said repeatedly: 'The difference between Labor and the Opposition is that we trust people'. Those opposite trust the doctor to write a certificate then impose penalties of $10,000 or five years' gaol! They use arguments to suit themselves. There is no trust at all. There is absolute rigidity in the situation. Do they trust people? They have spent their time attacking the doctors. They have been proven wrong. The Penington Committee showed them how wrong they were in their attack. All the time they said that they would not trust the pathologists and the procedural people. Let the Minister remember their lack of trust and all their wild statements in condemnation of the procedural specialists, the pathologists, radiologists and so on. What was their margin of error? The Penington Committee said that there was an upsurge of 105 per cent in charges. Of course, those opposite were wrong to a mammoth degree. Do they trust people? They say that they trust pensioners to fill in their forms, but they say: 'We do not trust the doctor, a highly respected person in this community, to make a proper medical judgment which only he or she can make, a judgment tempered with compassion, with sensitivity and with the humanity that this community would have. Not at all; we will have bureaucrats.' Perhaps they are not going to check up on the doctors. If they are not going to check up on the pensioners by knocking on doors, perhaps they are not going to knock on hospital doors. Is there a difference in this situation? After all, we have shown where we stand on this attack on procedural specialists. Senator Coleman —Come on. Don't start that stupid nonsense again. We know there will be an election on 1 December. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Does Senator Coleman remember the attack on the radiologists and pathologists? Does Senator Coleman remember what happened to legislation on that in the debate in this Senate? Does Senator Coleman remember that step by step everything we said on that matter has been proven to be right and the Government to be wrong? Does Senator Coleman believe that it is right to hound doctors in this situation, that it is right to force a doctor to take compassion and sensitivity out of his judgment? That is exactly what is happening now. Does Senator Coleman also believe that it is right to restrict the number of nursing home beds so that we are forcing out people who cannot stand the test of requiring acute treatment, not people who are capable of domiciliary care? If they are sub-acute patients who require particular medication and so on, they will not stand up to this test. Where are they to go? That is the real test. We had an incredible contribution by Senator Crowley. If I heard her correctly, she said: 'You are confusing the two things.' She was referring on the one hand to the 35-day rule and on the other to the shortage of nursing homes. She said they are linked but not totally linked, as though being kicked out of a hospital with nowhere to go for specialised medical treatment is not a direct path. She said: 'You never needed the 60 days. Thirty-five days is all right. The medical profession will tell you that'. Indeed, what she is saying and what presumably the Labor Government is saying is that all the cases that are coming before members of parliament now are frauds, they are phoney, and that there is no struggle to try to get people into private nursing homes. The argument that went on ad nauseam last night was that this was not true and that we were, in fact, putting up false cases. The fact of the matter is-the Government cannot get away with it-that there are such cases. Senator Peter Baume —Even one is enough. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Peter Baume says that even one is enough. One showing lack of compassion, sensitivity and accommodation is a demonstration of the breakdown because the one will be followed by two and then the tens and the hundreds. Putting it down to hard facts and summarising what has happened, the Hawke Government has reduced the period from 60 days to 35 days, reduced the test from four factors to one factor and imposed a ghastly and drastic penalty upon the doctor making it an absolutely rigid judgment. It has, by its own separate action, frozen the number of nursing home beds and, through its State governments, produced a chronic shortage of beds in ordinary hospitals and it has committed a ghastly misrepresentation on the people of Australia in the presentation of its advertisement. If Medicare is good, if Medicare should be compulsory and if indeed it is all the things said about it, why does it need this advertising? In any case, that is a tissue of falsehoods. It is fundamentally not true to say that people can get into hospitals and stay in hospitals for free. It is an outright and wicked misrepresentation to say: 'But, of course, you still have the freedom to buy whatever private health insurance you feel is necessary. You can choose to have just that little bit of extra cover, or you can cover yourself for as much as you like. Either way it is your choice. You can decide how much health insurance you want and how much you want to pay for it.' That is simply not true. On top of that, of course, are the hidden things: 'P.S. We forgot to tell you that we, the Hawke Government, have taken away the tax deductibility of your private insurance.' 'P.S. We would not say that because that would be embarrassing.' 'P.S. We forgot to tell you about our fiddle of the consumer price index so that we reduce inflation artificially.' 'P.S. We forgot to tell you that we are threatening the patient through the specialist doctor in the hospital'. All these things are done in the glory of why Medicare is good for the system. Medicare is good for the socialist system. Medicare is a system which decides that it will bring the doctor under the control of the State, that it will in fact reduce the complete confidentiality and flexibility of the doctor-patient relationship, that it will take away the opportunity for the better doctor to try to succeed more, for the differential in prices, and it will take away the right of people to insure and to cover their own expenses, the right of people to protect themselves in times of illness. That is a pretty far cry from that wonderful advertisement. Yesterday I heard people talking about the honesty and truth of advertising in political life. That in itself is a scandalous advertisement but it is very opportune that it should be around at this moment to demonstrate the kinds of things that emerge when one puts this Bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, in the totality of the Medicare package. Step by step what the Medicare package claims and what it does are two different things. In fact it badly restricts the services available to patients. It is restricting the doctor- patient relationship and, as it goes on and as it follows the pattern of failure overseas, the Australian community will be forced to pay more; not a one per cent levy but a 2 or 3 per cent levy as the costs engulf them for poorer and poorer services. I reject what is said in the advertisement and I reject the steps taken by the Government. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.27) —The people listening to this debate may be surprised to know that we are debating two pieces of legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, as practically no reference was made to the social security legislation apart from a few passing references by Senator Messner and Senator Gietzelt. Obviously people have little interest. The whole of the debate, and certainly that part of Senator Sir John Carrick's speech which was relevant to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, seems to hinge around objections to the 3B certificate system whereby patients, who are in a hospital for more than 35 days, need a doctor to sign that certificate. His debate also hinges around the difficulties as the Opposition sees them. Nothing could demonstrate more how dishonest the debate opposite is than some of the remarks of Senator Sir John Carrick, and I will go through them one by one, because he did ask a series of questions and I am certainly willing to answer them. The point he brought up I think six times was that this Government had introduced what he called a ghastly and draconian fine of $10,000 or an alternative of five years' gaol for doctors who do not fill out the 3B form correctly. The facts are that the $10,000 fine and the five-year penalty for not filling out such a form correctly were introduced by the Fraser Government, the Fraser Government of which Senator Sir John Carrick was a senior Minister. Senator Sir John Carrick —For a different set of considerations. Senator GRIMES —We will come to that. It was the Fraser Government, and we transferred them over. That ghastly fine was introduced by the Government of which Senator Sir John Carrick was a senior Minister. He then came to the set of considerations. Under the previous Government there were four criteria. Our Government reduced the period from 60 days to 35 days because, as everyone who knows anything about it in this place knows, enormous rorts were going on. As anyone on the Senate committee investigating the matter at the moment will know even more there were enormous rorts going on under that 60-day system. We reduced it to 35 days and, at the request of the Australian Medical Association, we reduced the criteria from four to one. It was the medical profession who said : 'What we need is to make our professional judgment. You should rely on our professional judgment'. Senator Sir John Carrick —You attack the AMA every day. Senator GRIMES —Just hold on. I will support it again in a minute. It requested this. It said: 'Look, these criteria are too bureaucratic. We want a simple system'. That simple system, in the best words anyone could come up with, applied to acute care. What really makes me annoyed is when someone such as Senator Walters comes in here, as she did last night-I will come to her remarks and other remarks made by Senator Sir John Carrick in a moment-and says that the words 'acute care' prevent doctors from signing that 3B certificate for a patient who has a terminal illness, a patient who has carcinoma and needs constant treatment or drainage of the chest et cetera, or says that a person who has had a stroke and who needs continuing medical treatment cannot have a doctor sign that 3B certificate because that is not regarded as acute care. That is an outrageous statement. I repeat what I said last night: Any doctor who refuses to sign the form under those circumstances is acting politically and the only one who will suffer will be the patient. I remind Senator Sir John Carrick that I also am a doctor and I reserve the right to criticise members of my profession when they are wrong or when they act immorally or in a political way, and that is what they are doing in those circumstances. But in fact very few of them are doing it at all. If Senator Sir John Carrick has any evidence of someone being thrown out of a hospital because a doctor will not sign that 3B certificate when that patient should be kept there, I think Senator Sir John Carrick should come to the Minister for Health ( Dr Blewett) or the Department of Health and let them know about it, because we have not heard about it. He should know that the Department of Health can and will talk to any hospital which wants to put anyone out, and it will either negotiate a lower fee or negotiate another bed somewhere. If a 3B certificate cannot be signed it does not mean that no fee is paid but that it is reduced to a reasonable amount for someone who needs just nursing home type accommodation. That is the situation. The hospital gets a return more in line with the service it is delivering. That is the situation which exists. Under the old system people were kept in hospital so that the hospital would benefit by getting that higher fee, and it was a rort. The Department of Health, under the previous Government, knew it was a rort and held an extensive investigation into it. In fact on many occasions increasingly towards the end of its term of office, it was refusing to pay such fees. The fine of $10,000 was the Fraser Government's fine. The reason the criteria were changed was that the medical profession wanted them changed and we thought it was reasonable because we thought we could rely on doctors to use their judgment. The fact that a few doctors were deliberately misusing their judgment for political purposes, I think, is a disgrace to the medical profession and in fact to the whole system of health delivery in this country. Senator Sir John Carrick tells us that we have a freeze on nursing home beds in this country. That is a deliberate untruth and I believe Senator Sir John Carrick knows that it is so. Senator Peter Baume —It is effectively a freeze. Senator GRIMES —It is not effectively a freeze. In the first year 2,452 new nursing home beds went on stream. Certainly most of them were approved before, and another 3,316 nursing home beds have been approved in more recent times and approved under better criteria. What is more, unlike the old system, they will be built very soon. We will not have the situation that Dr Blewett and I faced when we came to government of having people who had received funding approval, going back many years, who had never provided a nursing home bed. We had a backlog of approvals which had been given years ago for all sorts of reasons. Because of poor judgment by those who gave the approvals, because they were given for political reasons and all sorts of other reasons, we had a backlog of approvals. There was a very real fear that if suddenly all the people who had received funding approval for nursing home beds took up their funds we would be in a dreadful state. We had an imbalance of nursing home beds throughout the community and we also had the fact, which is accepted by anyone who knows anything about the matter, that there are too many people in nursing home beds who should not be there. Over the last year we have looked at the criteria required for funding. We have asked people who have received approval to go ahead and do things or we will remove that approval. We have started to approve beds in places which have the greatest need. We have introduced the home assistance scheme, which Senator Gietzelt talked about, so that we can try to keep people out of nursing homes. I object to the sorts of comments which come from people such as Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Walters and others that we on this side of the chamber do not care, that we are heartless or whatever other expressions they use. The problem with aged persons accommodation in this country is that over the years we have had a gross maldistribution of nursing home beds. They have been in the wrong places. They have been in the eastern suburbs of Sydney instead of the western suburbs of Sydney. At one stage a few years ago there were none north of Bendigo in Victoria. Up to 30 per cent of people in nursing home beds should not be there. They should be either in their own homes or in less expensive and less dependent accommodation. Everybody knows that. Every report on aged care in this country has stated that over and over again. This Government will do something about it and it is the first government to do something about it. But what happens? We are accused of closing down nursing homes, not building nursing homes, keeping people out on the street and keeping people out of hospitals, and that is nonsense. Senator Sir John Carrick made some remarks about what he thought of the behaviour of honourable senators in the Senate last night and in particular about my behaviour. I cannot let the matter pass even though it is not relevant to the legislation. It was spoken about last night. What I consider despicable behaviour in this place is for honourable members or honourable senators to introduce into this place debate about the personal health and the personal health problems, including diagnoses, of either honourable members or honourable senators or their children. I think that behaviour is disgusting and unethical even for an honourable senator, let alone a nurse. That is what provoked me last night. Senator Peter Baume —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. Standing order 418 makes it quite clear that all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on honourable senators shall be considered highly disorderly. Senator Grimes has referred specifically to Senator Walters in a way which I believe breaches that standing order. I ask you to bring him to order. Senator McIntosh —He never mentioned any names. Senator Peter Baume —I make the point that last night Senator Walters raised a matter in debate which related to the administration of Medicare as it affected a particular member of Parliament. Senator Grimes said that that was unethical and improper behaviour-I do not know whether these are his exact words- especially as it related to a member of the nursing profession. I believe that he is in breach of standing order 418 and, in the interest of fair debate here, I ask that the honourable senator withdraw. Senator GRIMES —I withdraw. I have no reason to sustain that debate. I merely point out now in general terms that if we get to the stage in this place when it becomes commonplace for the personal medical diagnosis of either honourable senators or their children or relatives to be bandied around this place, I can assure Senator Sir John Carrick that we will be in a deplorable state because God knows where it will end up. It will not be me who is doing it and it will not be me who is doing it in reply, but it will end up that way. The simple fact about Dr Blewett's daughter's case is that Dr Blewett asked for no privileges and received no privileges that any other member of the general public in the Australian Capital Territory cannot request and receive. I think everyone knows about the matter; they have heard it 1,000 times. Dr Blewett preferred and his daughter preferred to be operated on by a salaried specialist. He made that request and the salaried specialist did the operation. The advertisements which preceded the introduction of Medicare and which followed the introduction of Medicare in Canberra stated: 'You can have a doctor of your choice as a Medicare patient in a public hospital in Canberra. The doctor admits you to a public hospital for any pre-arranged service and can continue to treat you in hospital'. Everyone knows that that is the situation in Canberra. It is certainly not the situation throughout Australia. No special privileges were requested. It is no secret that when this happened a well-known doctor-I think this is appalling-in this city was touting this story around the Press Gallery and around the newspapers in Canberra. The newspapers having seen the facts said: ' That is not much of a story'. Of course the only way it could become a story is if it were brought up in the House of Representatives or in this place. I repeat: If the diagnoses and the personal nature of a matter relating not only to a member but also to his children or his relatives are brought up, we will be in strife. I got very annoyed about it and I make no bones about that. When the matter came up in the adjournment debate I was pleased to hear last night another honourable senator on the Opposition side who, when I made the point that if this happens we will have some horrible exchanges in this place, said: 'Two wrongs do not make a right'. I said: 'No, two wrongs do not make a right. It will not be me who brings up those issues'. At least the honourable senator admitted that what had happened from the Opposition side in this case was wrong. It was wrong and it will always be wrong. I think that the standard of debate and the standard of behaviour not only in this regard but also in other regards has reached a level, this year and last year, which is not healthy for the Westminster system of government about which Senator Sir John Carrick is so concerned. Prying into people's personal affairs in this place will not lead us down the track to better government, better democracy or better debate. However, if people such as Senator Sir John Carrick expect us on this side of this place to sit back and take it, expect us on this side to sit back and say: 'Yes, it is perfectly all right for conservatives to say what they like about people on our side of this place and we will be gentlemen and ladies and not respond', he is mistaken. He will continue to be mistaken but in the end we will all be the losers. I believe that I have dealt with the matters raised by Senator Sir John Carrick about the fine which, I repeat, was introduced by the Fraser Government and the single criterion for a certificate about which Senator Walters made a great fuss last night. It was introduced at the request of the Australian Medical Association. I have pointed out that there has been no freeze on nursing home beds in this country and nor will there be; but there will certainly be a more efficient delivery of nursing home beds in this country. I make one final point in relation to Senator Sir John Carrick's comments. He referred to the industrial dispute in New South Wales between the orthopaedic surgeons in particular and the New South Wales Government. He seemed-I may be incorrect-to come down on the side of the doctors. He said: 'They are being grossly provoked'. I point out gently to Senator Sir John Carrick that the Australian Medical Association in New South Wales-I again support it-does not approve of the doctors' actions and nor should it. Why should it? It is very easy for medical practitioners who have very considerable private wealth to say: 'We are willing to sacrifice gains that we get from our profession, for a principle'. Some of their colleagues are not too willing to do it because they rely on the income they get from their profession, unlike a couple of people who are most vocal in this dispute at present. It is no wonder that the Australian Medical Association disowns them, and will, I believe, continue to disown them. The other general issues that I raise include the 3B certificate. Senator Sir John Carrick and other honourable senators may be surprised to know that I think that the 3B certificate system is not perfect, nor is it completely satisfactory . I, as a senator, have made representations to the Minister for Health to have some aspects of it changed. That is fair enough. When one introduces a system like this one will always need changes. We are making changes now and not all those changes necessitate legislation, as Dr Blewett pointed out in the other place. Some of those changes are being made by regulation. We are, in fact, introducing criteria now because the AMA, despite wanting the single criterion and wanting to rely entirely on the professional judgment of the doctor, now seems to have some difficulty operating under that system. If necessary we will introduce criteria and those criteria will be discussed with the medical profession and those who have to operate the system. Many other extraneous matters were brought in today by Senator Sir John Carrick and others. These matters are often brought in in this place. Senator Sir John Carrick said that the waiting lists are long in public hospitals. Indeed, they are long and they have increased a bit since Medicare came into effect. But they have always been long. As long as I have been in this place, senators have been talking about the length of the waiting lists in hospitals. For Senator Sir John Carrick to suggest that the fact that some people die before they can have open heart surgery is something which has suddenly happened since the introduction of Medicare is nonsense. It will always happen and it always has happened. Senator Sir John Carrick cannot produce any evidence that that happens more frequently now. Senator Watson —The queues have increased; the waiting times have increased. Senator GRIMES —Did it ever occur to Senator Watson that one of the reasons the queues have increased is that people may now be trying to have surgery that they could not have done before because they could not afford it before? No, and it has never occurred to Senator Sir John Carrick either. We have had all the raving and huffing and puffing about no gap insurance. I was in this place when the AMA and the medical profession violently opposed gap insurance because they work on the gypsy principle that medicine cannot be practised unless someone crosses the palm with silver and gap insurance would take away that concept. We have been through all those debates in the introduction of the Medicare legislation. If Senator Sir John Carrick thinks that in the vast majority of countries comparable with Australia that have a national health scheme of some type or another-all the social democracies of Western Europe-vast numbers of people are saying 'Get rid of our national health system, we want to go back to the free enterprise system of the United States where the difference between what people can afford- Senator Watson —Who has been advocating it? Senator GRIMES —Senator Sir John Carrick has been advocating it. Senator Watson should not open his mouth too wide. In a place like the United States the difference between what people get if they can afford it and what they do not get when they cannot afford it is appalling. Senator Sir John Carrick —That is not true. Senator GRIMES —Senator Sir John Carrick should ask Senator Baume, who has worked in public hospitals in the United States. He should ask him about doctors having to put their hands in their own pockets in order to give people some of the least expensive and simplest but essential drugs. We all know about that; some of us have actually been there. Most comparable countries have national health schemes because governments have come to realise that this is the only way to bring equity to the system. Most of these schemes-not all of them-retain the right of private practice, but none of them retains the right of private practice to the extent that the national health insurance scheme does in this country. None of them uses public funds to prop up private practice the way the national health insurance scheme in this country does. To condemn our scheme as being like the British scheme, for instance, is to show a profound ignorance of the difference between the two systems. I thank honourable senators for supporting the Social Security and Repatriation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and I thank the Opposition for not actually opposing the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984, although one would have thought from the debates that there would be a mass revolution about this. There is an amendment, the usual amendment that we see in this place, trying to slap the Government on the wrist. It is based on the gross misconception of what the 3B certificate system is all about. To suggest that we scrub the system, get rid of the 35-day rule and forget all about 3B certificates et cetera is to express a profound ignorance of how the system works. The previous Government had a 60-day rule. That system was rorted. The previous Government had criteria on how doctors should make a judgment at the end of 60 days. The doctors did not like it, they wanted a simple system. We gave them that. The previous Government introduced the $10,000 fine and the five years gaol, not this Government. I am sorry that Senator Sir John Carrick finds it so ghastly, so horrible, so draconian and all the other words that he used, but he did not seem to think it was so when he was a senior Cabinet Minister in the previous Government when that was introduced. So I am afraid I cannot take his criticism very seriously. A series of Opposition senators have ranged broadly over the whole of the health system. They have had a bit of a lash at the social security system here and there and have made no constructive suggestions except Senator Sir John Carrick who seems to think that it is constructive to say that we should chuck out the health insurance scheme and introduce a scheme similar to that in the United States. We have had pseudo-economic lectures from Senator Sir John Carrick, which he puts into every speech he makes in this place, on the reduction of the consumer price index by Medicare. We have had gross misstatements about the effect of the fines and the 3B certificates. We have had no hard evidence and no positive suggestions for the future. I thank honourable senators for their co-operation. I wish we could have got the legislation through a bit faster and I hope that we can get it through the Committee stage a little more quickly. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is it about? Senator WALTERS —It is a statement relating to the speech by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Senator Grimes —I suggest that Senator Walters use the Standing Orders. One of our people was refused leave yesterday. Unless she tells us what the matter is about we cannot grant leave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes —No. Senator WALTERS —In that case, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —There are several areas in which Senator Grimes claimed that I was not telling the truth in my speech last night. I would like to deal with those one at a time. First, when I was speaking about the 3B certificates that must be signed by doctors after patients have been in hospital for 35 days, I was explaining that under our system when we were in government doctors could use four different guidelines. Under the present system there is only one, and that is acute care. I said that the doctors were objecting to this. Senator Grimes said that that was not true. Again today, he said that the doctors have asked the Government to withdraw the four and make it only one. I have been speaking to the Australian Medical Association, following the speech last night, and at the same time as Senator Grimes was making those untruthful statements in the Senate today, and I was assured that the AMA had never asked the Government to withdraw those- Senator Grimes —Who were you talking to? Say who you were talking to, come on. Senator WALTERS —I was talking to George Repin. Senator Grimes —Oh! Dear, oh dear, oh dear. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes is suggesting that George Repin is not telling me the truth? Senator Grimes —I am suggesting that you were not asking him the right questions . I take a point of order, Mr Deputy President. We have had a request for a personal explanation to be made in this place, because, one would assume, Senator Walters claims to have been misrepresented. With due respect, she is now making another second reading debate speech. Senator WALTERS —No, I am not. Senator Grimes —Wait a minute. Senator Walters is saying 'I made this speech last night; Senator Grimes disagreed with me; I have now gone away and got new evidence'-and all that sort of thing. If we allow this, we will have personal explanations endlessly after every speech made in this place. I do not mind people giving personal explanations. I certainly think that people should have the right to claim that they have been misrepresented. But when it is extended to the extent that we have a repeat second reading debate speech, I think that the whole system will break down. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Grimes. I am ready to rule on that point of order now. Senator Walters, you have leave to make a personal explanation. You have to confine it to how you are affected personally, and so far, in my view, you have been adhering to that, but you must not stray beyond that point or debate the matter at all. Senator WALTERS —I will not stray, Mr Deputy President. I was told that I was not telling the truth. I am just indicating that I was expressing the truth. George Repin told me this morning that the AMA never asked the Government to withdraw the four. He said that the 3B certificate, as a fait accompli, was presented to the AMA and the AMA was asked for its response-that is, the single acute care section on its own. The AMA's response was that if the doctors had the full choice of whether patients stay in or not, they would not have any complaint. The AMA has since asked the Government for guidelines. Senator Grimes —I said that. Senator WALTERS —That is not what Senator Grimes has said. Senator Grimes —I have said that, Senator. Senator WALTERS —Indeed, Senator Grimes made it very clear that the AMA asked the Government to withdraw the four. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you are getting very wide of the point. You have leave to make a personal explanation. You are not seeking to do so on the ground of misrepresentation, which is a different ground. You must show how you were personally affected. I accept the earlier point, where Senator Grimes said that you misled the Senate in some way; that is proper. But you must confine your remarks to how you were personally affected by what has happened. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes has just been proven to be telling untruths. On the second issue, as regards Dr Blewett's use of Medicare, I said last night: He did not just take the doctor on duty. It was not good enough for him. That is the situation. Generally, in all the capital cities apart from Canberra, if Australians have a problem and they have no private-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters, I cannot see how this is affecting you personally. You must confine your explanation as to how you were personally affected. Senator WALTERS —I have been misrepresented in the situation that Senator-- Senator Crowley —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Standing order 418 states that no senator shall use and/or imply any imputation of improper motives. Senator Walters has just implied an improper motive to Dr Blewett. It is untenable. It is contrary to standing order 418. I ask that the honourable senator withdraw it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Thank you, Senator Crowley. I ruled on this matter last night. Certainly standing order 418 has that nature, as you have said, but describing the behaviour of the Minister for Health, in these circumstances, is not criticising his motives within the terms of standing order 418. Senator Walters, on this explanation for which you have leave, you must confine yourself to how you were personally affected, and you must not reopen the debate. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. All that I said was that he did not use the system as the rest of Australia must use it. Senator Crowley —That is not what you said, Senator. You said that it was not good enough for him. That is to imply that you understand what he thinks. It is outrageous. Senator WALTERS —He did not use the system as the rest of Australia must use it, and I still maintain that that is exactly what has happened within Canberra. Senator Grimes —You are a disgraceful woman; absolutely outrageous. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes will cease interjecting. Senator Grimes —It is the sort of behaviour she goes on with in Tasmania. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes! Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Macklin, M. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Rae, PeterDurack, P. D. Reid, M. E. Evans, Jack 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. Withers, R. G. Childs, B. K. Grimes, D. J. Coates, J. Hearn, J. M. Coleman, R. N. Jones, G. N. Cook, P. F. S. McClelland, DouglasCrowley, R. A. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Maguire, G. R. Evans, Gareth Primmer, C. G. Foreman, D. J. Ray, RobertGeorges, G. Richardson, G. F. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Colston, M. A. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Ryan, S. M. Martin, K. J. Reynolds, M. Messner, A. J. Button, J. N. Chaney, F. M. Tate, M. C. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Robertson, E. A. Chipp, D. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.07) —The Senate has before it notices of motion Nos 113 and 135. I wish to deal principally with notice of motion No. 135, which seeks to establish a Select Committee on Video Censorship. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Reid, I understand that if you wish to debate the notices cognately you will require leave of the Senate to do so. Senator REID —I seek leave to debate the two matters cognately. Leave not granted. Senator REID —Dealing firstly with notice of motion No. 135, I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Video Censorship, be appointed to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to videotapes and videodiscs and in particular: (a) the effectiveness of such legislation to adequately control the importation , production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (b) whether the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point-of-sale controls; (c) whether video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years; (d) whether Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations is adequate in identifying categories of prohibited material, and operating effectively in preventing the importation of videotapes/discs falling within the prohibited categories; (e) examine the extent to which videotapes and videodiscs containing pornographic and violent material are available to the community in general; (f) whether children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to videotapes /discs containing violent pornographic or otherwise obscene material; (g) whether the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 should be amended to make it an offence for persons purchasing or hiring 'X' classified videotapes/discs to allow, suffer or negligently permit children to view such material; (h) whether cinemas should be permitted to screen for public exhibition 'X' classified material, subject to prohibition from entry of persons under the age of 18 years; (i) whether films which merit an 'X' classification are being produced in Australia and, if so, whether Australian men and women are adequately protected by existing law from pressure to act in such films; and (j) the likely effects upon people, especially children, of exposure to violent , pornographic or otherwise obscene material. (2) That the Committee consist of 6 Senators, as follows: (a) 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) 1 Independent Senator, to be nominated by the Independent Senator. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be 3 members. (8) The the Committee and any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub- committee be a majority of the Senators appointed to the sub-committee. (10) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee with the approval of the President. (11) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (12) That the Committee report to the Senate by 31 March 1985. (13) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Committee has completed its report, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is not available, to the Deputy-President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation and, in such event, the President or Deputy-President shall lay the report upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. I will not go through all the paragraphs of the motion but will refer to only some of them. The Committee will be asked to report on the effectiveness of the legislation and its ability to control adequately the importation, production, reproduction, sale and hire of violent, pornographic or otherwise obscene material; to look into the question of whether or not the present classification system, as applied by the Film Censorship Board, is adequate as a basis for import and point-of-sale controls; to check on whether or not video retailers are observing the conditions of sale or hire attached to classified material, particularly in relation to children under 18 years of age; to look at other aspects of the regulations and their ability to operate effectively; to examine the extent to which this material is available generally in the community, and the extent to which children under the age of 18 years are gaining access to it. There are, of course, a number of important aspects in the inquiry. We have also included in the motion the number of senators who shall be on the proposed Select Committee on Video Censorship, the manner in which it shall operate, and when it shall report, that is, 31 March 1985. Amendments will be put forward by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and Senator Harradine which are acceptable to the Opposition. The Attorney will seek to effect a transfer in due course to a joint committee of the Parliament and to report as a joint committee. Perhaps that will happen; perhaps not. So far the record for establishment of a joint committee has not been a good one and it is for that reason we feel that a Senate select committee should be set up. At the last count the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette indicated that 948 films had been classified as X and 16 had been refused classification from 1 January 1984. I seriously wonder about the ability of a group of, I think, seven people to examine these films and many others and not become desensitised to the material. It may well be that that consideration and the classification of the material are aspects that will occupy the attention of the Committee. It is unfortunate perhaps that the whole debate has come to this stage. I suggest that if the matter had been dealt with by way of a Bill right at the beginning, rather than by way of subordinate legislation in the form of regulations and an ordinance, a committee could have been set up in February of last year to look into the implications; but that time has passed. We had the opportunity to take action when on 7 June the Senate passed a motion to set up a joint committee. That motion went to the House of Representatives before it rose for the winter recess on 7 June, but many months have been lost. I think that community reaction to the legislation is such that a committee of the Senate must get under way as soon as possible. I believe the Attorney-General misread public opinion when he stated earlier this year that community attitudes have changed to the point where people want the kind of X-rated material available for home use. I do not know what the Select Committee's findings will be. It may well find that the Attorney-General is right, but it is my observation, from representations made to me, that he is wrong. In fact, one might suggest almost that he has been a slow learner in getting round to considering this matter. It was not until 20 August that he agreed, publicly at least, that a joint committee should be set up. There have been many letters to honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives, many letters have been published in newspapers, and many petitions have been presented by constituents expressing their concern about the legislation. I believe they are entitled to have the matter reviewed. It is the advent of the video cassette recorder which has changed this issue so much, and perhaps many of us did not realise soon enough what the effect would be. I think we need to look into the matter. The community is entitled to have the opportunity of expressing its views. As the Senate is aware, a meeting was held in Canberra which 2,000 people attended. It was a very large public meeting and was held on a very cold night. Those people came to make known their views about the legislation. I cannot see that there has been any good reason for a delay in setting up the Committee. It just seems a pity that so much time has been lost. The Australian Capital Territory has become an island in that New South Wales has not gone along with the classification. Most States seem to be either against it or very concerned about it. I would say that now is the time to get on with setting up the Committee. We should get it established and functioning this week so that it can place advertisements, call for submissions and, over the recess, start looking at the material which undoubtedly will be put before it. I am sorry that I will not be able to be a member of the Committee, as the Territory senators expire-perhaps that is the correct word-when the Parliament is dissolved and do not exist again until the Parliament resumes. Territory senators do not have the same status as the other 60 senators. Even though I would like to have been a member of the Committee, I think it is important that it gets under way and gets on with the job that needs to be done. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.15) —I rise to support the motion which was moved by Senator Reid. It is important that an examination of matters relating to video censorship take place, and that examination is long overdue. I do not intend to delay the Parliament for long because I believe the sooner the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship is established the better. A number of people throughout the community believe that such a committee has already been established, not the least being the Attorney-General of Victoria who, in a Press statement issued a couple of weeks ago, referred to a committee having been established by the Federal Parliament. The problem is that until now such a committee has not been appointed. As far back as June of this year the Senate adopted a resolution requesting the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee to investigate video materials. That resolution was transmitted to the House of Representatives and was not dealt with adequately by that House before it got up for the winter recess. In fact it was dealt with very late one night and into the early hours of the morning. There was a similar occurrence on two subsequent occasions when the matter was brought forward in the House of Representatives. As of last week when the House of Representatives rose for the forthcoming election the matter had not been finally determined. Therefore, because of the problems being experienced within the community with regard to this issue, it is necessary for the Senate to take the action that is being proposed today. I do not want to delay the Senate so I have risen simply to move the amendments that have been circulated in my name. The first amendment seeks to leave out the word 'Censorship' in the title of the proposed committee and proposes that the committee be called the Select Committee on Video Material. In the second amendment I propose in the general terms of reference to include an examination of the operation of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. I believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the Committee will be able to pursue all of the legislation which it seeks to consider. My third amendment proposes to insert after paragraph (1) (c) new sub-paragraph (ca) so that the Committee can inquire and report on the following: Whether 'R' rated videos should be permitted to be displayed for sale or hire in the same area and side by side with 'G', 'PG' and 'M' rated videos and, if not, what restrictions should be imposed on the display of 'R' rated material; At present there is a good deal of discussion on the question of R-rated and X- rated material. Under the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Classifications of Publications Ordinance, for a video to be classified as R- rated it must either not pass the reasonable adult person test-that is to say that it depicts sex, violence, crime, et cetera in a manner that would give offence to the reasonable adult person- or be defined as being 'unsuitable for the viewing of a minor'. I can think of R-rated videos which it could be argued do meet the reasonable adult person test but which are not suitable for the viewing of minors. One such example, it could be argued, is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Senator Zakharov —It has been prescribed as a school text. Senator HARRADINE —Before the Film Censorship Board can classify a film as R- rated it must, under the Ordinance, decide that that film either does not meet the reasonable adult person test or is classed as unsuitable for the viewing of minors. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has been classified by the Film Censorship Board as R-rated. Therefore in the view of the Board it either does not meet the reasonable adult person test or is unsuitable for the viewing of minors. Those are the facts. All that I am saying is that there are two types of R-rated material. Clearly the Committee will need to examine this aspect at some stage. I wish to move another amendment which seeks to insert after paragraph (1) (g) new sub-paragraph (ga) so that the Committee can examine and report on the following: Whether the sale, hire, distribution or exhibition of films and videotapes/ discs that would, under existing laws, be accorded a classification above 'R' should be made unlawful; One of the defects of the motion before us is that it does not say whether material that is currently classified as X-rated or material that is classified as being above R-rated should not be permitted by law in Australia to be made available for sale, hire, distribution or exhibition. It is high time that the people of Australia had an opportunity to have their say on this matter. We know the problems that exist as a result of the new provisions introduced by this Government which have legalised for the first time in Australia the general importation of hard core pornography and its commercialisation in the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that the public has been concerned about this matter from the start. This Committee will give the public the opportunity to have its say. The establishment of a select committee of this character is an extension of the representative functions of members of parliament. We are here after all to represent our constituents. Our constituents will have in this Committee a sounding board, if you like, for their views. I do hope the reasonable and responsible views of the community will be put forward to this Committee in a logical manner so that it can examine the ramifications of the existing laws, the ramifications of the widespread availability of video material in the community at present and not least the effect of this material on children. I had proposed further amendments which would have dealt with print material containing pornographic, violent or obscene publications. It has been suggested by some video distributors that the concentration by members of parliament and the public is on video material and that people have ignored the fact that objectionable print publications are widespread. There is a great concern about objectionable print publications. I would have liked this Committee to have dealt with the public's viewpoint on that matter. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that evidence will be produced to the Committee that there is a need for consideration of the laws relating to such material. I am sure that the Committee will receive evidence of this. I am told that it is the concern, particularly of the Opposition and the Government, that we should focus now on video material, so I have agreed not to press at this stage that the Committee's terms of reference be extended to cover objectionable print publications. With those reservations and with the following amendments I support the motion for the establishment of the Committee. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to move my four amendments together. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —I move: 1. Paragraph (1), leave out 'Censorship', insert 'Material'. 2. Paragraph (1), after 'operation of', insert 'the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations,' 3. After sub-paragraph (1) (c), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(ca) whether ''R'' rated videos should be permitted to be displayed for sale or hire in the same area and side by side with ''G'', ''PG'' and ''M'' rated videos and, if not, what restrictions should be imposed on the display of ''R'' rated material;'. 4. After sub-paragraph (1) (g), insert the following new sub-paragraph: '(ga) whether the sale, hire, distribution or exhibition of films and videotapes/discs that would, under existing laws, be accorded a classification above ''R'' should be made unlawful;'. Amendments agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.28) —As I foreshadowed earlier this morning, the Government will not oppose this motion which is consistent with what has always been our willingness to establish a parliamentary committee as soon as possible to take evidence and report on the kinds of matters set out in these terms of reference. It is unfortunate that the pressure of business in the House of Representatives was such that the motion for the establishment of a joint committee did not come to us sooner. But in any event it will be apparent to honourable senators that that motion would have been aborted with the forthcoming dissolution of the House of Representatives anyway. The establishment of a Senate committee certainly makes it possible for research to be done, inquiries to be set in train and submissions to be garnered over the whole period between now and when we resume. But it remains the Government's desire that the committee looking at this question be a joint select committee. It is with that in mind that I previously foreshadowed and will now move amendments to the terms of reference making it clear that, on the resumption of the Parliament, the work of the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship will be subsumed into the work of a larger joint select committee. Accordingly, I shall seek leave to move the five amendments circulated in my name, three of which are minor tidying-up amendments to make it clear that the X classification referred to in Senator Reid's terms of reference would be more appropriately described as a classification above R. More particularly, amendments No. 4 and No. 5 on the circulated list make it clear that it is the view of the Senate that the Senate Committee should have a relatively limited time span. I seek leave to move my amendments together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: 1. Paragraph 1 (g), leave out ' ''X'' classified videotapes/discs' insert ' videotapes/discs classified above ''R'' '. 2. Paragraph 1 (h), leave out ' ''X'' classified material', insert 'material classified above ''R'' '. 3. Paragraph 1 (i), leave out ' an ''X'' classifcation', insert ' a classification above ''R'' '. 4. After paragraph 8, insert the following new paragraphs: '8A. That the Committee operate until such time as a Joint Select Committee with terms of reference similar to those proposed in Message No. 359 from the House of Representatives is appointed by both Houses of the Parliament. 8B. That on the establishment of such Joint Select Committee, the Committee be authorised to release to it transcript of evidence and other documents received by it relevant to the inquiry of the Joint Committee.' 5. Paragraph 12, after 'That', insert ', subject to paragraphs 8A and 8B,'. Amendment No. 5 is that the reporting date of the Senate Select Committee be adjusted to reflect the probability that it may go out of existence when the joint committee is established. It would be the intention of the Government to establish the joint committee immediately upon the resumption of the Parliament, thus enabling matters subject to the terms of reference to be dealt with expeditiously. The existing motion, just passed in the House of Representatives, provides for a reporting date of 30 April. The motion now before us to establish the Senate Select Committee provides for a reporting date of 31 March. I suspect that the April date might be the more realistic date. But that matter can be discussed closer to that time. These terms of reference moved by Senator Reid differ in some slight respects from those accepted in the House of Representatives. I do not seek in any way to quarrel with them nor, as has been apparent in the last few minutes, does the Government quarrel with the amendments moved by Senator Harradine which again vary the terms of reference in some essentially marginal respects and which have been the subject of discussion between the parties this morning. The Government will seek to move quickly this week to establish the Senate Select Committee so that it might seek submissions and have a secretary working on commissioning research and doing all the other sorts of things that are necessary when a parliamentary inquiry is set in train. I do not want to be taken as accepting any of the more extravagant assertions that have been made from time to time about the state of crisis in which the nation is now plunged by virtue of the operation of the present system. I simply make the point, as I have all along, that this is a difficult area of social policy. It is one on which strongly held competing views are held. The Government is certainly willing that there be an objective consideration of how the new law has been operating. We think it has now been operating for long enough for some such objective assessment to be made. We wish first the Senate Committee and subsequently the joint select committee the best of luck in getting on with what will be a difficult job and hope, of course, that in the process it does not come back too slavering, depraved and corrupted by virtue of its exposure to the material which will be before it. Amendments agreed to. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.33) —The Australian Democrats support the motion to establish the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship, General Business notice of motion No. 135, because we agree that only a Senate committee can be guaranteed continued existence beyond the election to be held on 1 December and, indeed, beyond the dissolution of the House of Representatives, which will be next week. We are now and always have been opposed to violent, cruel and sadistic material on videotape. We understand fully and sympathise with the concern of the community about this matter, especially the concern of parents about the effect of this material on their children which is a very widespread and deep feeling. It has become apparent since this matter was first seriously debated earlier this year. Earlier this year, because of Australian Democrat initiatives, we were able to make some significant improvements in the regulations so that violent, cruel and sadistic material which is gratuitous is now excluded definitely and absolutely by the Customs regulations. Those regulations were also changed to make classification of this material mandatory rather than voluntary, as was the case in the past. So we are making some significant progress. We made progress then. I made the point in speaking to that issue that this must be a continuing debate in the community, that we had not reached the end of it and that it was necessary for us to establish a community consensus on what was acceptable, right and proper and what the community wanted. In the view of the Australian Democrats nothing could achieve this better than a Senate committee which could go to the public and ask them what they feel. Then the Senate, the Parliament, and hopefully the Government, can be guided by the results of that. On that basis we support this motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.35) —I do not intend to take up much of the time of the Senate. I point out that the Opposition has at last been able to establish a committee relatively promptly now that the House of Representatives has gone into recess. The statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that the Government has always shown a willingness to set up such a committee has to be taken with a grain of salt. When during debates the Opposition suggested a committee, Senator Evans-we need only to refer to Hansard for this-very definitely said that it was unnecessary and that only the likes of the wowsers on this side would object to this material. But it is enough that the honourable senator has seen the light and I am delighted to see that he is joining us. I am only too happy to accept his amendments for the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship to abide by. I am also only too happy to accept the amendments put forward by Senator Harradine. The Government has been dilly-dallying in the setting up of this Committee. The Opposition asked that a committee be set up well before the winter recess. The request went to the House of Representatives and on that occasion the House of Representatives was again too busy to deal with the request. It was not until Parliament resumed for the Budget session that the Special Minister of State, Mr Young, put forward his proposition to set up a committee. That was, as has been said today, a rather strange way to go about it in view of the fact that a request from the Senate was already before him. However, he agreed to that but it was the shortest lived committee ever. I presume people had been chosen from the various parties to go on to that committee but the committee never met. Indeed, without Senator Reid's motion, we would have been waiting until next February for action to be taken in the setting up of a committee. As a result of Senator Reid's motion we are now able to go ahead in the Senate and get it under way. Again, I am only too happy to join with Senator Evans in agreeing that, when the House of Representatives resumes, it should be a joint committee. I do not think there is any need to elaborate further on the need for this Committee. It is very obviously required by the people of Australia from the number of signatures that have come in. It is very timely to say to the people of Australia that their signatures on the petitions that come into this House and into the lower House certainly do have an effect on the government of the day. If there are enough signatures, a government does listen. This in particular is one area where the thousands of signatures that have been brought into the Senate have had their effect. The Government has now said that it will agree with the Opposition and allow this Committee to get under way and I am delighted to hear that. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.39) —Notice of motion No. 113 deals principally with the call for a moratorium on the sale, hire and distribution of X-rated material in the Australian Capital Territory and across Australia pending the outcome, it says in the motion, of a joint select committee of inquiry into pornographic videos. In fact I will seek leave to amend that to be the senate select committee of inquiry and then the joint- Senator Peter Baume —Parliamentary inquiry. Senator REID —I will amend that to be a parliamentary inquiry. The motion also sets out some of the reasons for a moratorium. That is, it asks the Senate to recognise that the New South Wales Government is to ban X-rated videos which makes the Australian Capital Territory somewhat of an island. It also asks the Senate to recognise the concern in the community, especially in the Territory, about the implications of the influx and importation of this material. It seems to me that, if there is to be a committee to look into these important matters, there should be a moratorium during the time that the Committee is operating and reporting. Who knows what the outcome and recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship will be? But I think the issues that relate to the call for a moratorium have been adequately expressed and put in the debate that has gone on during this year. It rather speaks for itself. At this time it would be more appropriate to try to complete the matter than to debate it at length. I seek leave to amend notice of motion No. 113. Leave granted. Senator REID —I move: That the Senate- (a) recognises the concern in the community in the Australian Capital Territory , New South Wales and other parts of Australia about the influx and importation of 'X'-rated videos for sale, hire, reproduction and distribution; (b) notes that the New South Wales Government is to ban the sale, hire, reproduction and private distribution of all 'X'-rated videos in that State; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to place a moratorium on the importation, sale, hire, reproduction and private distribution in the Australian Capital Territory and across Australia of all 'X'-rated and other sexually sadistic and violent videos pending the outcome of the proposed Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into pornographic videos. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.41) —Unquestionably this whole area of video material censorship is now in a shambles. In fact there has been a revolt amongst the States. I will not say that the States are revolting but they have revolted on this matter. We now have a situation where all of the States have expressed the view that X-rated videos should be banned. But faced with this revolt from the States, at least over the X-rated videos, the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has blandly stated that X-rated videos will be abandoned and a new R-plus classification established into which over 90 per cent of existing X-rated material will be placed, containing hard core pornography without significant violence which he describes as erotic material. Senator Gareth Evans —I didn't say 'will be'. I said 'will consider it'. Senator HARRADINE —He says he will consider it. I say that that is not only a sleight-of-hand but also an attempt to degrade the true meaning of the word ' erotic'. I take this point now and publicly so that the Government does not fall into that. The material now approved by the Film Censorship Board for the X rating and for which the Attorney-General is seeking to have discussions to transfer to the R-plus rating includes all the depictions which have been expressed from time to time in this place. I do not intend to use all of the descriptions, but in no way can that material be described as erotic. The fact is that we have to distinguish between eroticism and pornography. Senator Gareth Evans —What turns me on and what turns you on. Senator HARRADINE —No. As I said once before, one of the most evocative of erotic poems is contained in the Bible in the 'Song of Songs', the 'Canticle of Canticles'. As the leaflet convening the Canberra meeting in August pointed out: Pornography focuses on the pleasure of one's own body. It is selfish. Art draws one beyond and outside self, to wonder at the mysteries of creation, including human beauty and sexual love. Everyone who has experienced both, knows that there is an important difference, a line between pornography and art. The fact is that after months of procrastination the Government has agreed now to this parliamentary inquiry, this Select Committee on Video Censorship. But is is too little too late. In my view its terms of reference can probably now be called adequate but the Committee will not be able to finalise its business until well after the new Parliament meets. It is essential that the Committee that we have just established is not used to sweep the issue under the carpet, and that the Government places a moratorium on those publications incapable of meeting the reasonable adult person test pending the outcome of the parliamentary committee of inquiry. For too long the public has been kept in the dark on these issues and denied their democratic right to an effective say on this issue of major importance to the social well-being of the community. As the whole issue is in such a shambles now, it is only fair that the Government should agree to this motion and should impose a moratorium on that material pending the outcome of the parliamentary committee of inquiry. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(12.45) —Very briefly, the Australian Democrats believe, with great respect to the mover of the motion, that the motion has grave defects. Some of the statements in the motion and its intentions are wildly inaccurate. For instance, this Parliament does not have the power to put any kind of moratorium nationally; that power rests with the States. As I said earlier, the importation of sexually sadistic and violent material is already forbidden as a result of the Customs regulations and amendments passed here in the past. On that basis and with those reservations, we support the general principles of the motion. We will support it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.46) —The Government does not accept that there is a case for a moratorium, particularly in the context of importation, which is now subject to a series of regulations approved by the Australian Democrats themselves and, indeed, trumpeted as an achievement by them . We are confronting yet another inane and timorous flip-flop from the Australian Democrats. They acknowledge that the very terms of the motion before us are silly but nonetheless, because of some concern about electoral implications of behaving otherwise, they are supporting this call for a moratorium. We do not believe that the situation in the Australian Capital Territory is such that the fabric of either the Territory or the nation will collapse overnight with the continued operation of what is a quite effectively working ordinance over the next couple of months. Under those circumstances the Government believes it is highly appropriate to let the present situation, which is under very active review by the censorship Ministers, continue for the immediately foreseeable future. Of course it will be reviewed in the light of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Video Censorship and subsequently the joint select committee. Therefore, the Government opposes the motion but does not intend to press it to the point of a division. We do not think it is a very sensible motion. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.47) —I think that was a hypocritical statement by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). He has supported the motion to set up the Select Committee on Video Censorship, he has said that we need to review the matter, but he will not call a moratorium in the meantime. That is hypocritical. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I address my question to the Attorney-General. I refer to the Attorney's answer to Senator Chaney yesterday about possible problems concerning the cover of parliamentary privilege for the publication of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union if it is not tabled in the Parliament. Is the report expected from Mr Costigan on the 26th of this month or has the deadline been brought forward, as the Prime Minister suggested last week may happen? Does the Attorney agree that it would be totally unacceptable for media coverage of that report to be restricted to certain States because of concern about the question of privilege? Will the Government therefore take the course of action which would remove all doubts; that is, will it recall the House of Representatives and the Senate to receive Mr Costigan's report even if that means a delay of a day or so in the date of the dissolution of the House? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no knowledge of what the current deadline is in relation to the production of the report and I certainly do not have any information that it will in fact be earlier than 26 October. If it is possible to supplement that answer with further more up to date information than I have, I will do that as soon as possible. As to the access of the media and everybody else to the Costigan report in the terms in which it is made available to the Speaker and the President, it is not as satisfactory as it might be to have a situation where there is some uncertainty in some States about the way in which that material might be protected. I make it clear, however, that there will be no uncertainty at all in Victoria and no uncertainty in New South Wales to the extent that the New South Wales legislation is perfectly clear-that material which is absolutely privileged in Victoria is equally so privileged in New South Wales-and the situation will be clear here in the Australian Capital Territory. That still leaves some room for uncertainty in the other States, but I would not wish to exaggerate the extent of that. As to a recall of the House of Representatives, that would be quite impractical . As I understand it, the last date possible for the dissolution in order that the election might be held on 1 December is 26 October or thereabouts, and such a recall would completely disrupt the election timetable. In turn, that would create the difficulty-quite apart from the willingness of the majority of honourable senators to reconvene, which is yet another question-which I adverted to yesterday about the Senate purporting to act as a Senate when the House of Representatives has been dissolved. I honestly do not think the question is likely to become a real one. It is begging the question that there will be defamatory material in the report made available to the President and the Speaker and it has been made clear all along that the report in the form in which it is presented to the Government will be very carefully vetted by a number of independent bodies with a view to ensuring that no one is improperly prejudiced by it. Under those circumstances, it may well be unlikely that there will be anything in the report that is very defamatory anyway; but to the extent that there is, the basic protection will be there and any uncertainty is really only very much at the margin. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, refers to the statements regarding the Budget deficit that were made by the former Treasury head, Mr John Stone, and quoted in yesterday's Press. Would the Minister care to tell us what the likely implications would be for his Department and for the veteran community if the prescription put forward by Mr Stone were likely to be implemented? Senator GIETZELT —There is no doubt that veterans and veterans' organisations, if they realise the full impact of Mr Stone's statement, will appreciate that the Department of Veterans' Affairs would be very much in the firing line as a result of cutbacks in the deficit, which is part of the philosophy espoused by the former head of the Treasury. He stated that the Government should have applied the revenue surge that resulted from the breaking of the drought to reduce the Budget deficit more drastically, rather than to sustaining government programs in the face of the recession. This is the sort of policy on which he advised governments of both political persuasions in recent years, and those policies have been thoroughly discredited. If his recommendations had been applied by this Government, my Department would have had its funds reduced considerably as it is one of the top Budget expenditure departments-it is in the first half dozen-and consequently I would not have been able to get the funds required to improve hospitals, which are in a deplorable condition in comparison with those in the State hospital system. They all require new operating theatres . The wards are of 1942 standard and they require modernising and refurbishing. We would not have been able to carry out our obligations in respect of many of the pension areas if such cuts were introduced. There is no doubt that if veterans fully appreciate the import of the statements they will be very concerned that that sort of person has been advising governments in recent years . It is a clear case of a person who was once a top mandarin now being a pretty sour sort of lemon. Senator ARCHER —I refer the Attorney-General to his unconvincing attempt to justify the Government's attitude, and more particularly his own actions over the handling of the Age tapes issue, actions which have been widely condemned by commentators all over Australia in the course of the last seven weeks. In particular, I refer to his claim that, as regards matters covered by State law, there was nothing the Commonwealth could do to pursue investigations because of divisions of power under the Constitution. Does he agree that the Williams, Stewart and Costigan royal commissions were all joint royal commissions established by the Commonwealth in co-operation with State governments? Does he agree that this course of action was always open and remains open to the Commonwealth in respect of the serious allegations raised in the Age tapes material? Why has the Hawke Government consistently refused to approach the Wran Government to set up a joint inquiry? Senator GARETH EVANS —I made it perfectly clear yesterday that the Government has nothing to be ashamed of in its handling of the Age tapes, and indeed that is a view that has been amply endorsed by Sir James Killen, who not only took that particular view about the approach the Government adopted but also took a considerable swipe at the mean-spirited and unprincipled way in which the Liberals had approached the issue themselves, trying to advance their cause-not that they have been very successful, judging by the current gallup polls-by a campaign of smear, innuendo and reliance on allegation at the expense of fact. I made very clear yesterday what the content of that Age material was, where it bore upon Commonwealth offences, where it bore upon State offences and what action had been taken in relation to it. It was a full and convincing answer in terms of the approach that any government would have taken when confronted with that particular material, and I have absolutely nothing to add to what I then said. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Is there any basis for the assertion of Margaret Power, as reported in today's papers, that the prices and incomes accord and the Government's policies for economic recovery have been targeted in such a way that men are the prime beneficiaries in terms of increased job opportunities? Senator RYAN —I saw a report of Margaret Power's comments in the media and I was surprised by them because I think her analysis is wrong. I do not think there is any basis for her assertion that the economic recovery excludes women in its benefits. I draw the Senate's attention to a number of statistics which suggest that Margaret Power's analysis is without basis. First, the growth in the employment figures between the June quarter of 1983 and the September quarter of 1984 shows a rise of 240,100 persons in employment. Female employment accounted for 124,900 of those-that is, over half that total. Female full time employment accounted for 68,000, an increase of 4.6 per cent compared with a 2.8 per cent increase in male full time employment. Those figures alone would suggest that women are benefiting from the economic recovery, and benefiting in a slightly higher proportion than they are represented in the work force. That is a highly desirable trend since they were previously badly disadvantaged by the economic policies of the Fraser Government. I also draw the Senate's attention to the success the Government has had in creating jobs for women under the community employment plan. There we have aimed at a target overall of 50 per cent of the jobs for women. We have not reached that target, but we have reached a figure for women of about 38 per cent under the community employment plan. I believe that percentage will increase over the next year. There is another point to be made in the kind of analysis made by Margaret Power. The kinds of jobs which are available to women in the labour market now are being diversified. This is happening because of the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act and also because of the affirmative action pilot program. Both those policies of the Labor Government will mean that women will no longer be restricted to the very low paid jobs, to which traditionally they have been restricted and on which Margaret Power's analysis is probably based. Certainly it is the case that while women are clustered in the low paid jobs, any wages policy that gives the same increase in wages to all wage earners will not allow women to overcome the gap that exists in wages. However, what will allow them to overcome that gap is the opportunity for women to move into different jobs-jobs in non-traditional areas which are higher paid, or to move up in job levels as a result of affirmative action practices. Our job creation scheme, the kinds of jobs that are being created, the effect of the Sex Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sex or marital status and, as we will start to see over the next few months, the effect of both the equal employment opportunity policies in the public sector and the affirmative action pilot program covering 250,000 workers in the private sector, will mean that women will continue to benefit from the economic recovery not only by gaining more places in the work force but also by gaining jobs that pay at a higher level. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to Senator Button the Minister representing the Treasurer. Following the statement from the chief general manager of the Westpac Banking Corporation that Westpac is 'hopeful that the Government will agree to the removal of remaining interest rate controls after the forthcoming election', is the Government seriously contemplating the removal of interest rate ceilings on small overdrafts and home loans? Given that Westpac believes a major reason for deregulation now is the Government's decision to admit foreign banks, does this not make a mockery of Mr Hawke's assurance to the Australian Labor Party Conference this year that-and I quote Mr Hawke-'The questions of foreign bank entry and interest rate deregulation are very much separate issues'? Has this Government, which has now been seized by a pseudo Fraserian-Friedmanite deregulatory fixation, considered what effects increased interest rates will have on small business and home buyers who currently have bank loans, on economic growth and unemployment, given the collapse of small business and the home building industry, and on Australia's inflation rate? Finally, has the Government considered the cost of reintroducing an interest subsidy scheme of the type that it abolished last year once home buyers begin to default on mortgage payments? Senator BUTTON —I do not represent the Treasurer, but I think I can probably help . Senator Jack Evans referred to Mr Bob White's statement on behalf of Westpac about the removal of the remaining interest rate controls on home loans, and particularly small business loans. I am able to say that while no decision has been reached by the Government, those parts of the report of the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System dealing, for example, with small business finance, and particularly the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank and the general question of interest rates for small business, are under consideration by the Government, but no final decision has been made. Senator Chaney —Do you have any preconceived ideas about it? Senator BUTTON —I have some preconceived ideas, but Senator Chaney objects to preconceived ideas. His real problem is that, like the leader of his Party, he objects to ideas, preconceived or otherwise. As I said in answer to the question by Senator Jack Evans, that decision has not been made in respect of these matters. Senator Jack Evans also canvassed a number of pros and cons in the arguments about what would happen to interest rates in a deregulated environment . That is a matter for debate and argument. I concede that there are points that can be validly made on both sides, but it is a matter which the Government has to consider and decide in due course. I know of no proposal to reintroduce the scheme of interest rebates in respect of home loans to which Senator Jack Evans referred in the last part of his question. I deal finally with the rhetoric; this Government has not been seized by anything. Senator SIBRAA —I refer the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Resources and Energy to the recommendation arising from the June meeting of the Australian Coal Consultative Council that a labour adjustment package should be developed as a matter of priority, as one important means of assisting to meet the current problems of the coal industry. I ask the Minister: What stage has been reached in the development of such a package? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I happen to have a brief on that subject, which I am sure is a great surprise to everybody. I hope I can read it to Senator Sibraa's satisfaction. The proposal for a labour adjustment package for the New South Wales coal industry was first formally considered in the June 1984 meeting of the Australian Coal Consultative Council as a possible response to two structural changes occurring in the industry. Since then a package has been developed between the New South Wales Coal Association and the unions to introduce voluntary retirement at age 55, a redeployment relocation scheme, and retraining under the Commonwealth's labour adjustment training arrangements. This scheme was endorsed by the ACCC at its meeting on 14 September when imminent retrenchments on the South Coast were averted, at least for the time being. My colleague Senator Walsh issued a Press statement on 15 October drawing attention to the good relations that have arisen as a result of implementation of the scheme, particularly with arrangements to assist redeployment of miners from the southern districts. It offers hope, we believe, for cushioning the effects of structural change in the industry and providing some form of safety net should further retrenchments occur in New South Wales. If that does not sufficiently cover the matters raised by Senator Sibraa I will get further information, but I believe that answers the gist of the question. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer again to his not very good attempt to defend his action over the Age tapes and to his claim that the experience of the Street Royal Commission, the Cross inquiries and the Saffron, Sala and Moll-diamonds cases disproved the 'where there's smoke there's fire' theory. Has the Attorney-General forgotten that the Street Royal Commission resulted in the conviction of Mr Kevin Humphreys and the laying of charges against former Chief Magistrate Farquhar? Does that result not more than justify the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners program which brought the allegations to light? Why did the list yesterday exclude the Slattery inquiry into allegations of the prisoner early release scandal, allegations which were found to be well based and which have resulted in charges against Mr Rex Jackson and two others? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think the question answers itself. It was fairly obvious that an enterprise that set out to catch a whale found itself with but a couple of minnows. That, essentially, was the point of my reference to the Street Royal Commission last year. I do not resile from the accuracy or the force of what I said yesterday which was simply that while smoke is sometimes accompanied by fire-I readily acknowledge that there are circumstances where that is true-there are many instances where it is not. What we have seen over the last 12 months in this country is an unhappy demonstration of an attempt by Opposition members to get down into the gutter to advance their cause, massively unsuccessfully, by the politics of smear, innuendo and unfounded allegation. They ought to be collectively ashamed of themselves. I am surprised at their hide in bringing forward questions of this order today. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Has he seen Press reports concerning the Queensland Premier' s belligerent suggestion of trade sanctions against New Zealand imports because of that country's stance against entry by nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered warships? Does the Minister agree that should New Zealand decide to adopt similar trade retaliation, Queensland sugar growers, for example, already under threat, could face a loss of $22m in exports to New Zealand? Senator GRIMES —Like most other people in this place, I noted the comments by Mr Bjelke-Petersen, or Sir Joh as he is known in some quarters, advocating retaliation against New Zealand because of its stand on certain issues. I should first of all say that the Commonwealth is committed to giving effect to the obligations under the Australian-New Zealand closer economic trade relations agreement which include lowering of tariffs and maintenance of the low tariffs which exist now. Such extremes as suggested by the Queensland Premier are not helpful in resolving problems of ANZUS or in promoting the economic welfare of both countries. Therefore, they are not helpful in promoting the security of this region. The closer economic relations agreement commitments extend to State governments; accordingly, any independent action by Queensland would need to be examined closely to determine whether it is contrary to these agreements. The Premier of Queensland frequently enters into the field of foreign affairs. On one spectacular occasion, I think in 1980, he announced that, unless Japan stopped buying meat from foreign countries like New Zealand and Tasmania, Queensland would have to take action against the Japanese. That was certainly an example of the mouse that roared, I suggest. The fact that the Premier has great difficulty in knowing what is a foreign country and what is not a foreign country-- Senator Robert Ray —Where was he born? Senator GRIMES —The fact that he was born in New Zealand himself, yet has no concern for the New Zealanders, suggests that he would be best to keep out of foreign affairs and restrict himself to those areas in which he has some knowledge. I realise that that would make his life extremely restricted, but I think in those circumstances it would be the best thing for him to do. Senator SCOTT —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It also relates to his attempt to justify his action or, more accurately, inaction, over the Age tapes. Does the Attorney agree that ever since his statement to the Senate on 28 February, his main concern has been to stifle and restrict debate and action by Parliament on the matters raised in the tapes? Does he agree that if this misguided tactic had been successful, that is, if the Parliament had not exerted its rights, the serious matters raised by Chief Magistrate Briese might never have come to public attention? Would he have preferred that Mr Briese's allegations had never seen the light of day? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is fascinating to see the sensitivity the Opposition has to any kind of reasoned statement of the Government's position on this and the urge it feels in those circumstances to come up with the absurd and pathetic orchestrated attack, if it can be so dignified with that description, it has made today. I do not accept that any part of the Government's actions since the beginning of this year have involved an attempt or a motivation to stifle debate in any shape or form whatsoever. I do not propose to respond specifically to Senator Scott's question. I do not think it would be proper to do so in the light of the Senate committee inquiry which is now proceeding and the stage it has reached, not to mention the difficulties of being accurate in responding to a hypothetical situation as to whether Mr Briese might ever have felt motivated to come to light with his allegations had it not been for the first Senate inquiry. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Government follow past practice by allowing Commonwealth public servants to brief Opposition shadow Ministers in anticipation of their being Ministers after the next election? What would be the cost of such briefings? Does the Minister feel that such expense is justified? Senator BUTTON —If it has been past practice to allow Commonwealth public servants to brief members of the Opposition shadow Ministry, this Government would follow that past practice. I do not recall it happening on the previous occasion we had an election, but it may well have. Senator Crichton-Browne —You do not remember the case of the little deficit that the Treasurer is talking about. Senator Grimes —That was after the election. Senator BUTTON —I do not think that is the sort of information being sought by the honourable senator who asked the question. Of course, as was pointed out by way of interjection, that information became available after the election rather than before it. I am sure that the past practice would be followed. Indeed, I do not actually anticipate a change of government, but whether that be so or not, a briefing of Opposition spokesmen on a wide variety of issues would be highly desirable. Whatever the result, we might have a better informed debate after the election. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the Hawke Government's promise before the last election 'to give priority to the enactment of a judicially enforceable Bill of rights' which would set a general standard against which legislative enactment and executive behaviour both at Commonwealth and State levels could be decided. I remind the Attorney of his statement to Labor lawyers a few days ago that a draft Bill had 'reached an advanced stage earlier this year and close consultation has been taking place since then with the States and with interested persons and bodies in regard to that Bill'. In view of this, why does the Attorney refuse to make this Bill available for public scrutiny so that its proposals can be judged by the people voting at the election on 1 December? What aspects of the Bill does the Government want to hide from the Australian people? Will a promise to introduce a Bill of rights again form part of the Government's policy for this election; if so, will any details of the Bill be given or will the people be asked to sign yet another blank cheque? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am delighted with the continuing interest that is being shown by Senator Durack in this topic. I look forward in the new Parliament to the kind of constructive co-operation in the drafting of the measure that he has been so anxious to offer me over the last few weeks. As I have explained on numerous occasions, the reality of the matter is that it is a very complex piece of legislation involving many difficult policy questions as well as many difficult machinery questions and many difficult questions of law, all of which need extensive consultation with a variety of interests and a variety of experts in order to ensure that the best possible foot is put forward-I am sure Senator Durack would want us to put it forward-in the context of this very important legislation. Against that background, deliberations have been proceeding for a long time. As I said yesterday, there is no draft in existence in any final form, nor do I have back all the comments that I wanted to receive from various sources before I wanted to make the Bill public. It is certainly part of the Australian Labor Party's continuing policy commitment to have a Bill of rights. I fully expect it to be part of our policy commitment for the new Parliament and to have the measure introduced into the Parliament for an ample period of public comment and reaction to it some time next year. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the Attorney- General simply refuses to answer the gravamen of the question, I ask him again: In the election campaign, will even a broad outline of the Bill, if not the Bill itself, be made known to people? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have given a series of broad outlines of what the content of the Bill might be in a series of public speeches in the course of the year. Clearly, it would be based, to the extent that it is constitutionally possible and desirable to do so, on the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I would have thought that would have given a lawyer of Senator Durack's creative imagination and ability plenty to chew on over the months between now and its introduction into the Parliament. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. What transport assistance has the Government provided to Tasmania ? How does the Government's approach differ from that of the Opposition parties? Senator GIETZELT —In the 13 years that I have been in the Senate the transport problems in Tasmania have been a topic of constant discussion and debate in the Senate and a matter of some decision making by various governments from time to time. I believe that the current Government has met its responsibilities very admirably in respect of the transport problems that face the people of Tasmania, to the extent that it is giving them, in the current Budget, more than $2m a week towards solving those problems, which is about $103m a year, in four separate grants. Roads are getting $53m, the freight equalisation scheme is getting $29m, $18m will be provided in the form of subsidies to the Australian National Railways Commission and an additional $3m is being given to rehabilitate the Tasmanian railway system. That is more than has been given in past years. In addition to that, the Government has decided to give an extra, I think, $26m to assist the Tasmanian Government to modify the Tasmanian passenger ferry service by replacing the Empress of Australia with a new vessel that is capable of doubling the number of passengers travelling between the mainland and Tasmania. This, of course, is a very positive help to overcoming the disadvantages that Tasmania suffers as a result of its isolation from the mainland. The Government finds it very difficult to appreciate the failure of the Opposition parties to condemn the statements made by the National Party spokesman for northern development, who has criticised the Government's approach to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. One would have thought that there would be a non-partisan attitude in respect of our obligations as a national parliament to bring about some equal treatment for Tasmania in terms of transport and associated problems. One can only hope that after the coming election we will see some improvement in the representation of the people of Tasmania in the House of Representatives to provide more voices to improve further our contribution towards overcoming the transport deficiencies that we acknowledge exist in Tasmania. Senator KILGARIFF —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It concerns the confusion and uncertainty which surround the Hawke Government's policy on Aboriginal land rights. I refer the Minister to the reported statement of the Prime Minister in Darwin yesterday, namely: I don't believe that we're going to be able to clarify the land rights issue before the election. Does the Minister agree that this contradicts Mr Hawke's statement at his Canberra Press conference two weeks ago when he said the Government would be making its position on land rights quite clear before the election? Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind before the election? Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind in such a short time? Does this about-face mean that there will not be a statement before the election as to whether the Government will introduce overriding uniform legislation to give Aboriginals the right to veto mining on their land? Does she agree that, without this guarantee, the Burke Government's decision not to provide for a veto in its land rights legislation is worthless? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of what the Prime Minister actually said in Darwin yesterday or the context in which he said it. It could well be that he was referring to the fact that details about the Western Australian legislation are not expected to be available before 1 December, although there is a process of consultation and participation by the Federal Government in the preparation of the legislation to go before the Western Australian Parliament. As I have said several times in this place on behalf of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, our position on land rights is clear insofar as the Minister has laid out on many occasions the principles on which we believe land rights should be based. Those principles include control by Aboriginals over what happens on their land, including mining. Senator Crichton-Browne —A veto? Senator RYAN —I remind the Senate, partly as a result of Senator Crichton-Browne 's interjection, that the Federal platform of the Australian Labor Party provides that there shall be control by Aboriginal people over mining on their land and that there shall be the opportunity to refuse to allow mining or to establish the conditions under which it can take place. However, that part of the platform is qualified by the provision that any such refusal to consent to mining or any such conditions imposed may be set aside by an Act of Parliament in the national interest. As far as I am aware that national interest provision has been largely accepted throughout the Aboriginal community. The word 'veto' or the concept of an absolute veto is not part of our platform, although it certainly is a part of our platform and of our intention to provide a real measure of control to Aboriginal people over what happens on their land. The detailed legal implementation of that Federal commitment is being negotiated with the States where States are willing to introduce land rights legislation. It is a very important distinction that whereas the Burke Labor Government in Western Australia is committed to land rights, has announced that there will be land rights legislation and is currently drafting land rights legislation, with the benefit of a senior officer from the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Liberal and National parties in Western Australia are opposed to land rights and have conducted a very vicious, dishonest and fear- mongering campaign against land rights which has not only undermined-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Minister was asked whether the Government is prepared to clear up the confusion about its own stance. The question quoted statements made by the Prime Minister two weeks ago and yesterday. A diatribe from the Minister about other parties' policies is a clear evasion of the question. I suggest that the Minister should be asked either to answer her question or to sit down. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Opposition knows that the Chair is not in a position to direct how a Minister will answer a question. That is up to the Minister herself, but I ask the Minister to respond to the question as expeditiously as she can. Senator RYAN —Yes, Mr President, I will do that. I can understand Senator Chaney 's sensitivity on this question and his motivation in seeking to interrupt my exposition of our Government's pro-land rights position because the Party of which he is a member in Western Australia is absolutely opposed to land rights in any shape or form. In absolute contrast to that the Hawke Labor Government at a Federal level is committed to realistic land rights, all State Labor governments are in the process of developing or have developed land rights legislation, and the principles-- Senator Chaney —New South Wales? Senator RYAN —New South Wales has developed land rights legislation. Senator Chaney —Not in-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, I ask you to cease interjecting. Senator RYAN —Mr President, it is quite clear that there is a total contrast between the position of our Government and State Labor governments, all of which are committed to land rights, and the position of the Opposition, which at one stage was in support of land rights but which now has resiled totally from land rights, particularly in Western Australia. The principles on which we believe land rights legislation throughout Australia ought to be based have been announced clearly in the Senate on several occasions by me and in public forums by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The detailed implementation of those principles, of course, must await proper consultation and legislative drafting which has taken place in several States and is currently taking place in Western Australia. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I had a little trouble in following the answer. I ask: Will a statement be made before the election? Senator RYAN —Statements of our principles which ought to be included in all land rights legislation, whether that land rights legislation is implemented by a Federal or State parliament, have been made and may well be made again. But the principles are clear and are on the record both in this place and in public forums. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the introduction in the Budget of the special $50 and $75 income tax rebates for single and married unemployment, sickness and special benefits recipients. What are the effective increases in the taxation thresholds-that is, the level of exempt income-for single and married beneficiaries as a result of these rebates being introduced? How many social security beneficiaries will be freed from income tax liabilities as a result of the introduction of these new rebates? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Maguire has said, in order to free all maximum rate pensioners and beneficiaries who have no private income from paying personal income tax, the Government announced several initiatives in this year's Budget. This is the first year since 1976-77 in which all pensioners and beneficiaries with no other income will be fully free from paying tax. A special beneficiary rebate of $50 for single beneficiaries and $75 for married couples was introduced in the Budget and this will lift the effective tax thresholds in 1984 -85 to $4,783 for single beneficiaries and $7,989 for married couples. This will be phased out at a rate of $1 for every $8 of taxable income above these levels. The estimated number of full time beneficiaries who will benefit from this measure is 25,000. The Government has also-and we have heard plenty about it in this place- extended the dependent spouse rebate to de facto couples. Full time beneficiaries with a de facto spouse and no dependent children face a tax liability of $845 in 1983-84 because they were ineligible for this rebate. This amount represents more than 10 per cent of their annual income and would have placed these beneficiaries in an extremely disadvantaged position. Coupled with other measures, the extension of this rebate will overcome the tax disadvantage faced by members of this particularly needy group. Without this rebate they, as I said, would have been paying an extra 10 per cent of their annual income in taxation-some $845-and would have been put in an extremely difficult and inequitable position. I am therefore surprised that Opposition members who oppose this measure are more concerned about making what they consider to be moral judgments than they are about considering the needs of a very poor group of people in this community. Many pensioners and beneficiaries with private income will also benefit from the deduction in the marginal tax rate from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. Pensioners with a small amount of private income will benefit from the increase in their effective tax threshold from $5,429 to $5,533. I think all these measures demonstrate that the Government has been concerned to ensure that the position of the most needy people in the community is protected when considering changes to the taxation system. We are pleased that we are able to do this, and we will continue to concentrate on these people of greatest need, even though we may be attacked at times by Opposition members for doing so. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remind the Attorney-General that it is now three weeks since he asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate matters raised in material presented to the New South Wales Attorney-General, and subsequently to the Attorney himself, by Chief Judge Staunton of the New South Wales District Court concerning action allegedly taken by Judge Foord of the same court on the Morgan Ryan case. I also remind the Attorney that he said in the Senate on the second of this month that he wanted the inquiry to be completed as soon as possible so that the Director of Public Prosecutions could consider whether action was necessary. I ask: Have the police finished their investigations and reported to Mr Temby? If so, has the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to initiate any actions? Will his report be made public? If so, when? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no current knowledge of the state of that inquiry. It was in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions who was working with the Australian Federal Police. I do know that the police were having considerable difficulty in getting time with Mr Justice Flannery in order to get a more detailed statement from him. That was certainly causing, as of early last week, to my recollection, some difficulty in bringing the matter to some sort of speedy fruition. I will follow up the matter and I hope to be in a position to give some kind of progress report at least before the Senate rises. Senator RICHARDSON —Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce seen a report in the Age newspaper this morning, suggesting that Comalco Ltd is planning a $400m purchase of a large American aluminium producer? Does the Minister believe that this decision will lead to a surer export market for Australian aluminium products in the United States? Senator BUTTON —I do not think I have seen the report in the Melbourne Age. Comalco's intentions in relation to a very substantial investment in the United States were brought to the attention of the Government a day or so ago, and I am familiar with the broad nature of that investment. It seems to me to have two very positive advantages for the Australian aluminium industry. As Senator Richardson implied in his question, the purchase will help secure markets for products of the Australian aluminium industry in what is the largest national market in the world, and a very important and significant market for a variety of reasons. It will have both immediate and longer term benefits for Comalco, which is now a significant international company in terms of aluminium production. The second very important benefit which it will have for Australia is that it will provide a substantial capacity for technology transfer to the Australian industry. There are some areas of technology in the production of aluminium in which the Australian industry is probably as good as any other in the world. There are other areas of production of aluminium in which the technology in the United States is superior. The move made by Comalco will enable both industries to gain the benefit of the exchange of that technology; particularly, the beneficiary will be the Australian industry. However, the other important thing about the Comalco purchase and what flows from it is that it does represent an expression of confidence in the future of aluminium production and in the future of industrial production in Australia generally. The confidence is well placed in the current economic environment, which has been brought about by the present Government's policies. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Government's refusal to indicate its policy on a series of important issues before the early and unnecessary election. I ask this question in the hope that the Minister might be prepared to be honest with the Australian people. Will the Government give an assurance that a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or death duties will not be imposed following any review of the taxation system? Will the Government give an assurance that it will not introduce overriding uniform land rights legislation which would include a mining veto on Aboriginal land? Will the Government give an assurance that its secret Bill of Rights will not override State electoral laws? Will the Government tell us whether it will remove interest rate controls on small overdrafts and home loans? Senator BUTTON —It is very difficult for me to give an undertaking in respect of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties. I heard the Leader of the Opposition on the radio today promising that a Labor government, if re-elected, would introduce capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties. I heard him on the radio saying that in Adelaide. I remember three weeks ago when the same Leader of the Opposition came into this Parliament and said that he was going to make allegations about criminal associates of the Prime Minister. What did he do when he was confronted with the prospect of delivering? He went to water, and he will go to water in relation to this promise as well. He is the most irresponsible Leader of the Opposition this country has ever seen, in the sorts of comments he makes about these issues. He was making those comments today in Adelaide. I have answered the question about capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties in this Senate on numerous occasions. I told Senator Chaney as recently as yesterday, if he can remember back that far, that this Government was committed to a review of the taxation system. Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government, has to have questions of capital gains tax, wealth tax and death duties on the agenda. If Senator Chaney wishes to debase the coinage of Australian politics by saying that these issues should not be considered by political parties, if he is saying all of these things in the context of the political promises the Opposition has made in respect of the forthcoming election, then it is a very poor performance indeed from an Opposition. Let me refer to some of the other questions. Questions relating to Aboriginal land rights have been directed to Senator Ryan today, and she gave an answer. A question was asked relating to the human rights legislation. Senator Boswell —I take a point of order. Under Standing Orders the Leader of the Government in the Senate has no right to debate every question that has been asked. I ask you, Mr President, to pull him up. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator BUTTON —In respect of the shopping list of spooky interrogatories that Senator Chaney addressed to me, the Government will address these matters and make appropriate announcements at the appropriate time. These are matters of political debate, and they will be in the forthcoming election campaign. However , I am not going to repeat answers that have been given by other Ministers in this place in the course of today's Question Time. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate quite clearly: Will the Government declare its position on these issues before the election or will it not? Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I have already answered that question in the last part of the answer I just gave. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been drawn to an article in the Sunday Telegraph of 14 October headed 'Lost: A Chance at Life'? Is the article correct in claiming that the right to practice of private limb makers is threatened by Government policies and that this will mean the loss of independence and of a normal lifestyle for many amputees? Senator GIETZELT —I have anticipated for the last couple of days a question in respect of the free limb scheme, having regard to a number of representations and letters from members of parliament, including members of the Opposition, and also Press and radio statements seeking some clarification of the Government's position in respect of the free limb scheme which is operated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and provides free limbs not only to veterans but also to civilians throughout Australia. I cannot understand the campaign that is being waged. For example, one of my departmental officers was able to record a statement made on a radio program at 4.30 a.m. today which claimed that I was nationalising the industry. That, of course, is quite absurd. What happened was that some 18 months ago I reversed a decision made by the razor gang of the previous Government and put a freeze on the participation of any further private manufacturers in the free limb scheme. That meant that there would be competition between the public sector, known as the Government Repatriation Artificial Limbs and Appliance Centre, or RALAC, and the private manufacturers. The ratio between the two sectors has been maintained pretty well during most of the last financial year. Currently something like 57 per cent of limbs are being provided by the private sector as against 43 per cent by the public sector. I want to refute the absurd allegations that somehow or other private manufacturers are being disadvantaged by the decision I made 18 months ago. Really, they are griping about a situation which resulted from action taken by the previous Government. The Fraser Government, having made a decision with respect to the free limb scheme, then realised that the cost factor was increasing and engaged a firm of consultants, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, to set a pricing formula. The consultants reported to me because the government had changed and I had become the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I accepted the pricing structure recommendations of the consultants appointed by the previous Government. It is only now that the pricing structure is being applied that this unscrupulous campaign is being waged against the Government in which it is being suggested that somehow or other we are affecting the capacity of companies to operate in this area. As a result of the decision made by the previous Government the cost to my Department rose by some 24 per cent. Therefore, there was a need to establish a proper pricing formula so that the cost structure in place before the razor gang decision could be maintained. Just to put the record straight, I table the document my Department has provided to me which indicates that the private sector manufacturers are doing very well out of the free limb scheme. I just wonder how the private sector can use amputees as part of a propaganda campaign to undermine the Government's effective control of the cost structures of the free limb scheme. Senator MACKLIN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the passage yesterday of a Bill to allow political parties to authorise untrue and deceptive advertising enabled the Government to take out full page advertisements such as the one published on page 7 of today's Australian? Can the Minister inform the Senate how the two figures used in that advertisement were calculated? Does the advertisement misleadingly make comparisons between a financial year under the Labor Government and a calendar year under the previous Fraser Government? Are the figures used consistent in other respects? Does the Government, in subsequent advertisements, intend to give equal publicity to the tragic and horrible reality that there are well in excess of 600,000 Australians now unemployed? Senator BUTTON —I do not agree with the description of the legislation passed yesterday, which is based on a rather churlish historical view of the Australian Democrats. I have not seen the advertisement to which Senator Macklin refers. The honourable senator asked a number of questions relating to this matter. I will obtain an answer for him as soon as possible. Senator ROBERTSON —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy to the provision of $13.2m in the 1984 Budget to fund new energy research projects. Can the Minister advise the Senate of progress made this year in approving new grants for energy research? In particular, can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government is giving high priority to research in the fields of renewable energy and energy conservation? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I can assure the Senate that the Government and the Minister for Resources and Energy have a concern in this area. The 1984 list of new grants shows that about $1.7m went to 26 new projects in the area of renewable energy-wind energy, solar energy, and related systems. This is an important series of grants in light of the world energy shortage and the difficulties with other forms of energy development and their side effects. Over $2.3m went to 25 new projects in energy conservation, which will also be of increasing importance as the sources of non-renewable energy fuels diminish-a total of $4m to about 51 projects. A total amount of $14m for 99 new projects in these priority areas has been given by the Government. The Government is pleased to be able to support such projects after receiving advice from its independent advisers. These are high quality projects. They are very important for the development of world energy sources, in Australia in particular. For the information of honourable senators I will table rather than read out a list of national energy research, development and demonstration program grants approved in 1984 so that the proof of what I am saying and the proof of the Government's bona fides in these areas can be available to all. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, my question is addressed to you and follows the statement you made after a question I asked in the Senate yesterday. You said that the Speaker's remarks had been drawn to your attention, you expressed concern to the Attorney-General and said that the Attorney-General had undertaken to respond to your submission. Mr President, have you had a response from the Attorney-General? If you have, will you be advising the Senate of the Attorney-General's response? If you have not yet received a response, will you in due course be advising the Senate as to the Attorney-General's comments to you? The PRESIDENT —When the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Attorney-General yesterday concerning the privilege of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, bearing in mind some remarks that had been made by the Speaker of the House of Representatives last Thursday, I felt I had a responsibility as President of the Senate to indicate to the Senate at the time that I had written to the Attorney-General about the matter. I think I said that the Attorney- General would respond to me. I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that the Attorney-General has responded to me. As to the tabling of documents in the Senate, I at this stage can see no objection. But I will seek advice from the Clerk and respond accordingly later. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Primmer asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question about the treatment of a patient at Woomera Base Hospital. The Minister for Defence has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: A person with an infected leg wound was brought by fellow Roxby Downs demonstrators to Woomera Hospital on the morning of 22 September 1984. The name of the person was not given. He was seen by Dr Narayan, the specialist surgeon at the hospital. Dr Narayan has reported as follows: Apparently the patient had had an operation on his left upper leg two weeks before and had had a K-nail inserted into the femur. While at the boycott the wound had become infected. He had not sought any medical advice. On the previous Friday he had gone to the Andamooka hospital and was seen by the duty sister who changed the dressings and asked him to proceed to Port Augusta hospital. I told him very clearly that this being a base hospital it was only meant to treat patients who support this centre and also protestors in cases of very serious medical emergencies. I did not consider that this was a serious medical emergency because he had had this problem for the last 8-10 days. I advised them to proceed to Port Augusta hospital to get treatment at a public hospital. The protestors were politely asked to vacate the office before the Police were called. The protesters then occupied my office at which stage I requested assistance from both the State, and as they were busy, the federal police. The police arrived in 10 minutes and cleared the office. I telephoned the Port Augusta Hospital later that afternoon and ascertained that the man had been admitted. Departmental instructions to the area administrator for dealing with matters that could arise out of the presence of demonstrators at Woomera included ' hospital and ambulance services to be provided in emergencies'. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also had a question yesterday from Senator Mason relating to an alleged Central Intelligence Agency publication and CIA activities in Australia. I undertook to get a response from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information in reply to the honourable senator's question: The Government has no information at its disposal regarding the authenticity of the claims made in The Age report to which the Honourable Senator referred, which is based on a similar report in the New York Times of 15 October 1984. I can confirm that, as is usual in such cases, a spokesman for the CIA refused to comment on the report, and there has been no other United States Government response to it. The position of this Government is that Nicaragua and other countries in Central America should be allowed to determine their own affairs as sovereign, independent nations free from outside interference. This position has been stated on a number of occasions and has been made known to the United States Government. The Honourable Senator also referred to the joint defence facility at Pine Gap. In his parliamentary statement of 6 June 1984 the Prime Minister described the general purpose and functions of the joint Australian/United States defence facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. In that statement he also explained that the Government would not be commenting further upon speculation or assertions about the facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Obviously, therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to confirm or deny the Honourable senator's assertions about Pine Gap or to seek to enlarge upon the information which the Prime Minister has provided. I stress, though, the point that these facilities are jointly managed and operated by Australian and American Governments and I repeat the Prime Minister' s assurance that the Government is satisfied that all functions and activities at the joint facilities require, and have, its full knowledge and concurrence and that the operations of the facilities in no way derogate from Australian sovereignty. As to the honourable senator's final question about CIA activity in Australia, it has been the consistent policy of successive Australian Governments not to comment upon speculation or allegations about intelligence and security matters. I note however that Australian and United States Government agencies, including those in the intelligence and security fields, maintain extensive and valuable arrangements for exchanging information and views of mutual interest. In addition I would note that Australian Governments have had assurances at the highest level over a number of years denying that the United States Government or its representatives had been involved in improper or inappropriate activities in Australia. Allegations of CIA activity in Australia were raised in discussions the PM had in Washington in June last year with Senator Moynihan, Vice Chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Moynihan offered to assist the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies in any enquiry it wished to undertake in this matter. The offer was conveyed to the Hope Royal Commission which is expected to refer to the question in its final report. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Hill proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: 'The Government's failure to recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy and to implement policies that will encourage growth and employment opportunities within the sector'. 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 HILL(South Australia)(3.09) —One of the areas of greatest disappointment in the performance of this Government, of which there have been many, has been its record in relation to small business. Disappointment has occurred particularly as a result of expectations the Government built up prior to the last election. It offered the small business community what it called the 'Australian small business action program'. I repeat: It offered action. As it adopted almost all that had been called for by the small business associations, particularly the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, it is not surprising that its policy was embraced. COSBOA welcomed the election of the Labor Government. It made the great mistake of taking the Australian Labor Party at its word. It believed the promises Labor made before the last election. Now, like so many other interest groups, it has learned a lesson. Those who listened to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at Willunga during the last election campaign promising that there would be no introduction of a wine tax and those who believed Labor when it said it would not renege on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway have learned not to believe in this Government's election promises. Small business has been treated cynically by this Government, but I do not think anyone would have appreciated the extent to which this Government has failed to perform and the almost total failure to meet the program it set. Today I want to run through Labor's promises. It will not be a pleasant experience for Government senators to be reminded of all the promises Labor made to small business before the last election. I also want to look at its record of failure to perform on those promises. But it is important to remind small business of Australia as to exactly what Labor did promise. Small businessmen will have the opportunity to show, at this forthcoming election, that Labor may have treated them as mugs once but they will not be treated as mugs twice. I then want to look at what the Opposition is offering; that is, a well thought out, constructive policy package which does not promise the world but rather responds to small businessmen's real needs. I am pleased to indicate that the policy has been released today. It has been developed over the last 18 months. What has been developed in the Opposition's small business policy is a policy that is responsive to small business. Roger Shipton, the shadow Minister for small business in our Opposition, has travelled the country listening to small businessmen and small businesswomen. I remind the Senate that only some short time ago he arranged and held a successful small business seminar in Sydney which was supported by business people from all over Australia. If this Labor Government had been meeting the reasonable expectations of Australia's small business people they would not have turned up in their masses to that conference . But they turned up because they wanted to speak to the Opposition about their aspirations because those aspirations had not been met by this Labor Government. The real concerns of those business people are addressed and reflected in our policy. These businessmen were then given the opportunity to comment upon the drafts as they were prepared. We have listened and responded to their real needs . My colleagues Senator Missen and Senator Crichton-Browne will look at specific policy areas which will benefit small business. Senator Missen will speak to the comprehensive package for reform of the regulatory process in this country which was put down yesterday. All small business can reasonably claim to be overregulated. The policy developed under the chairmanship of Senator Missen will offer positive relief not only in relation to future regulation but also in relation to past regulation. As I indicated, Senator Missen will detail this policy. It can be contrasted with Labor's interventionist approach. The Opposition policy which will maximise competition and minimise government intervention will be music to the ears of small business. This time small business will not be fooled by the Prime Minister's sudden election time interest last week in the subject of deregulation. Is it not a coincidence that at election time, as in this whole area of small business on the last occasion, the Prime Minister suddenly becomes interested in the subject . One of the few small business promises that this Government has kept is the one that it was not willing to indicate that it supported smaller government. Senator Crichton-Browne will look at another of the major burdens of small business; that is, the inflexibility of Labor's wages policy to deal with the widely varying conditions faced by small business. The Opposition's wages policy recognises that individual small businesses have individual problems and opportunities which will inevitably be overlooked by a solely centralist approach to wage fixing. Our more flexible policy, which Senator Crichton-Browne will detail, again will be applauded by realistic forward looking small business, employers and employees alike. Senator Boswell will then join this debate on our side. He is a person with many years of practical experience as a small businessman. He is able to speak the language of small business. He will speak to small business and not, as this Labor Government does, at small business. I will move to Labor's record and the promises it made before the last election . These promises are reflected in a policy released by Bob Hawke on 13 February 1983, headed 'Labor's Policy for Small Business-An Action Program'. The document states: It will provide Australian small business with a New Deal. The gall of that man. The document continues: A Hawke Labor Government will move to implement the . . . Programme as soon as it is elected to office. Let us test the performance of that promise. Firstly, let us look at one of the critical areas to small business, and that is taxation. In that document Labor promised to allow small firms full retention of profits where these funds were to be used for genuine business purposes. Of course, it has not kept that promise. It promised to allow the option of quarterly instalments of provisional tax; it has taken no action in relation to that promise. It promised to allow a full month for remittance of sales tax. One would not have thought it would be a very difficult promise to keep but, again, it has failed to keep that promise. It promised to exempt industrial research development grants from tax and, again , it has failed to keep that promise. There were four specific tax promises Labor made before the last election and it has not kept one of them. I will move to the area of finance, another area obviously of major concern to small business. Labor promised to expand the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank to lend to small businesses, including debt and equity packages . There has been no action upon that promise. It promised to investigate the establishment of an over the counter market in unlisted shares. Of course, the Commonwealth has done nothing in that regard although the States have been quite active. It promised to convert the Australian Industry Development Corporation into the Australian Industry Development Bank. That has not occurred. It promised to encourage and facilitate any initiative by private financial institutions which will improve the provision of finance for small business. It has not met that promise. It promised to increase the borrowing entitlement of the Commonwealth Development Bank and I am pleased to concede that it has in fact freed the bank from Loan Council control. Finally on finance, it offered administration of monetary and banking policies to avoid sharp increases in interest rates on trading bank overdrafts. It has taken no specific action in that regard and in fact the real interest rate had increased under this Government. I will move to the field of education, training and advice. This Government promised the adoption of a strategy for the co-ordinated and rational development of small business education and training throughout Australia. That has not occurred. It promised to establish small enterprise counselling training programs. That has not occurred. It promised to establish referral centres known as small business bureaux in each State. There were already small business bureaux and corporations in each of the States. The very promise shows the ignorance of this Government in this field. It promised to arrange for private consultants to be available. There has been no visible action in that regard. It promised to provide grants to trade associations wishing to develop specific management training programs and, again, there has been no visible action. It promised to establish marketing and promotion services attached to small business bureaux and, again, there has been no action. What a pitiful performance in that area. I will move to fair competition, which is one area where honourable senators might have expected this Government to act. It promised to strengthen the Trade Practices Act. That has not happened. It has put out a Green Paper, a talk paper , but in relation to the Act the only real action it has taken is to seek to remove sections 45D and 45E and thus weaken the power of non-union groups, particularly small business, to avoid being caught up in industrial disputes. This Government promised to upgrade the Trade Practices Commission. That has not occurred. It promised to introduce franchise laws to protect small businessmen. There has been no action. It promised to seek the co-operation of the States to ensure that proposed new shopping centres are in the best interests of the community. There has been no action. It promised to develop, in consultation with the States, a standard lease agreement for retail shopping centres. Again there has been no action. One could continue through this whole policy paper and one would see that the result is much the same. In the area of Government purchasing this Government promised to enact a buy Australian Act with special reference to small business. What a fraud. Not only has it not occurred but also expenditure for the Buy Australian campaign under this Government has been reduced by 89.6 per cent. It promised to persuade State governments to give preference to Australian firms in general, in small business in particular, and that has not occurred. Let us look at its policy on information and research. An increase in funds for research has not come as promised. Special research institutes have not come. It promised to increase dramatically the funding for the Australian research grants scheme. That has not happened. We know the embarrassment caused to the Government by its own Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, who deplored the fact that his Government was not prepared to meet promises on greater research facilities. The only area in which the Government seems to have done anything is in the reform of its own bureaucracy. It said it would turn the small business branch of the Department into a small business division and it has done that. It said it would turn the Small Business Advisory Council into a Small Business Council and it has done that. But what does that mean? We looked at and explored in the Estimates what it means. We looked under the new division and we saw that there was a new publications branch. We asked what extra has been achieved by the branch. The answer we got from the officer was: What has been going on and what happened last year are pretty much in the same category-it was just a little more of the same last year. What about the new Small Business Council? The Council is searching for a role and it has written to small business itself for help. What a disappointing performance. This Government has implemented about three or four out of some 35 separate programs that it promised to implement immediately. That is an embarrassment. That is a real indictment for this Government. It is not surprising that I do not see the name of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) on the list of speakers in this debate although I am pleased to see that he has now entered the chamber. It is something that must be embarrassing to him. All this might not be so important but for the important role that small business plays and can play in our economy. Of approximately 730,000 enterprises in Australia 93 per cent employ less than 10 people. Honourable senators on this side of the Senate believe that small business will be the major job creator of the future if it is given the right economic environment and if the Government is sensitive and responsive to its real needs. That is what our small business policy seeks to do. Our document is some 22 pages long. I obviously do not have time to look at it in detail but I commend it to small business. As I have indicated, two of my colleagues will look in greater detail at the areas of wages policy and regulatory reform. There are four other areas I want to mention in this brief debate. The first area is that of taxation. I have indicated to the Senate the total failure of this Government to meet the specific promises it made to small business in relation to tax. What have we said in this policy in relation to taxation? We have said to small businessmen that a 46 per cent marginal rate of tax on average weekly earnings is too high. We will reduce that income tax and we will broaden the tax to enable us to do so. We have said that we will retain the investment allowance at the current 18 per cent with a view to restoring it to 20 per cent because we want to encourage investment in jobs in the small business sector. We will institute a phased and equitable system for the removal of double taxation. Small business now knows that we are genuine in that regard because we commenced that process when we were in Government. But, of course, this Government came into office and immediately removed the benefit that had been given in that regard. We have indicated in this policy that we will provide a 50 per cent write-off premium in respect of private industry research expenditure. We will do that because we appreciate the importance of a research capacity to private industry in this country. We understand what is the real cost if that capacity is to be provided by small business and, therefore, we are prepared to give this incentive. We also know the hassle of the cost of compliance with sales tax administration. So , in this policy we have said that we will review and reform the procedures in order that such costs might be reduced. The second area that I want to touch upon is education and training. We are concerned that young people are not learning about the commercial world in which they live. We know that small business knows what we are talking about in this area even if the Government does not. We commend small business to review the whole series of positive policies that we offer in relation to education and training. The third area I want to mention concerns sub-contractors. Our support for sub-contractors as genuine, independent business people is restated in this policy. We see them as being squeezed between governments and unions. We will set out to reverse the threats to sub-contractors that this Government is at the very least condoning. The fourth area which I want to mention, which is specifically dealt with in the policy, is the need to assist small business with access to world markets. Small business has the vision but the cost in money and the cost in time in getting into the wider markets that a total world market provides are simply too much for small business. We see a responsibility for government in that regard. We detailed in our policy how the next coalition government will give small business a real opportunity in that area. Mr Acting Deputy President, as I have indicated, Labor offered a new deal and, I remind you, promised immediate implementation. It misled small business in that regard. Small business knows for certain that this Government stands for big government and big unions and it has now learnt also to stand for big business. A nominal representation in Labor's pyramid by a seat in the Economic Planning Advisory Council will not be enough to regain the confidence of small business. Small business will not again be misled by Labor. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(3.27) —We have just heard a fairly dreary presentation of Liberal Party of Australia policy on small business from Senator Hill. I was interested to note that, at the beginning of his presentation, he used the words 'total failure' to describe our policy. I guess that Senator Hill 's use of the words 'total failure' in terms of our performance illustrates why he will always remain a molehill and will never become a mountain when it comes to debate in the Senate. The eight or so minutes he spent at the beginning of his address stating how the Liberal Party intends to explain its policy, suggests that there is very little to say about what content there is in its policy. It reminded me of someone. Once we got down to hearing what the policy really was, when we inspected the quality of the shoelaces the Opposition might possess on this subject, it stands there with no clothes. The matter of public importance that we are debating today is aimed at chastising the Government on its performance with respect to small business. It is a matter of public importance which I think goes into the category of being a joke. There is one comment, and one comment only, that is necessary to dispatch all the arguments that the Opposition is putting. This comment, which was reported in the Australian on 28 August, was made by the Treasurer, Paul Keating , when he was explaining Budget measures on small business to the small business community. I think I should quote this article and, from that point on, we ought not hear any further discussion on this subject from the Opposition. The article states: Mr Keating backed his argument by quoting national account figures showing that while the income of unincorporated business fell in 1982-1983 by $1 billion, it rose by $5 billion in the last financial year. 'Company profits for 1982 to 1983, were also up by $800m and 1983 to 1984- that is in our term of office they were up by $5.5. billion,' . . . We have had a policy presentation of what the Liberal Party will do about small business. Let us look at the figures and compare performance. The figures show that in the last year of the Fraser Government the income of unincorporated business improved by $1 billion and that in the last year of our Government it improved by $5 billion. Perhaps the Liberal Party will tell us why small business should be rushing back to support it and return to the unprofitable, bankrupt days of its period in office. I believe that the questions that have been presented this afternoon require the Government to outline its record of performance with respect to small business. In doing so it ought to concentrate, firstly, on the macroeconomic settings for Australia-what type of growth and what type of economic climate we have created for small businesses to flourish in-and, secondly, on what specific policies we have launched to encourage the development of small business. We are quite happy, in fact we want, to talk about our performance in both those areas. Our performance is strong. However, when we are talking about what we have been able to do it ought to be remembered that when we came to power we inherited a projected Budget deficit of $9.6 billion and we were constrained in what we could move immediately to implement by virtue of the wreckage to the economy that had been left to us by the now Opposition. However, we have moved well. To get this matter in context I think it is necessary that we tour the statistics of the economic performance of this Government, because all of the economic indicators describe the economic environment that has so helped small business to resume its more profitable role in the economy and to employ and expand, as it aims to do. In terms of unemployment, 264,000 new jobs have been created by this Government since the National Economic Summit Conference. We are well on our way to realising our goal of creating half a million new jobs in the first three years of our Government. That should be compared to the situation in the last year of the Fraser Government, when there was an actual fall in employment of 186,000. So, on the jobs front-workers in employment, earning wages, with disposable income to buy the products that small business produces; indeed, many of them being employed by small business-the economic performance of this Government stands in startling contrast to the dismal and defeatist economic performance of the previous Government, the Government that Senator Robert Hill is now trying to offer to the small business community as an alternative government. This Government has halved the inflation rate and, with further measures as outlined in the Budget-with Medicare now affecting the consumer price index and therefore wage indexation-the prospect is very good for continuing low inflation rates, which will help the economic environment considerably for small business. It is in the area of economic growth that we should perhaps pause and consider performance. In terms of gross domestic product, for the year 1983-84, under the Hawke Labor Government, we experienced a growth rate of 5.7 per cent. Compare that to the situation in 1982-83, the last year of the Fraser Government, when there was an actual contraction of the economy and a negative growth rate of 1.2 per cent. So the environment is one of expansion. Small businesses are able to look forward to new markets and expanding opportunities to diversify their development and, of course, to continue to expand and to realise their goal of becoming medium sized to bigger industries. A major factor affecting the ability of small business to borrow and to expand is the fact that interest rates have fallen. Commonwealth short term bond rates have gone down by 2 percentage points since this Government came to office. Since March 1983 home lending rates have fallen by half a per cent to one per cent, depending on which source people borrow from. In terms of the financial opportunities for small business to take advantage of the general economic climate, interest rates are lower, their ability to invest and borrow is better. On the home lending front, with the fall in interest rates and the massive support for and development of home building in Australia, small business is facing a very buoyant future. Compare that to the dismal performance of the Fraser Government, under which home loan interest rates were rising. It is in that sector of home building and construction-the number of approvals and commencements-that small business has a major stake. A lot of small business, of course, is related to the development of the building industry and in that area small business is in fact expanding quite well. The performance of this Government in terms of retail sales is very strong compared to the zero growth rate in retail sales in 1982-83, when consumers were unwilling to spend because of the gloom under the Fraser Government. Consumers had a very real prospect then of losing their jobs. The value of retail sales has rebounded strongly in the three months ended July 1984. The seasonally adjusted value of retail sales for the three months to July 1984 was 7.3 per cent higher than that for the corresponding three months of the previous year. The index of consumer sentiment-the index compiled by the Melbourne University's Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, in co-operation with the Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd-showed the highest September level ever recorded, and that survey covers the last 10 years. In terms of retail sales, we are facing the prospect of a very buoyant Christmas, a Christmas of spending and a Christmas that many people in this community will be able to enjoy much more because of the tax cuts that were introduced in the Budget. Senator Missen —Do you think you are Father Christmas? Senator COOK —In fact, with the economic resurgence of this country this year, compared to the situation of the last Christmas under the Fraser Government, the answer is positively yes, we have performed the economic Father Christmas role. I am pleased to see that the honourable senator rightly recognises that and thus the defeatism of his Party. I referred earlier to housing commencements. The total number of new dwellings commenced in the 12 months to June 1984 was 136, 800, a 30 per cent increase on the figure for the corresponding period of the previous year. This is well in excess of the Government's target range of 130, 000 to 135,000 commencements announced at the National Economic Summit. Private investment-an area that one ought to be concerned about if one looks to the future health and growth of the economy-has come in for a great deal of attention from this Government. We are concerned at the fragile nature of private investment, and have been for some time. However, new fixed capital spending rose in real terms in both the March and June quarters of this year. They were the first rises since the June quarter of 1982. Expected private capital spending for the year 1984-85, as reported in the June quarter of 1984, is some 14 per cent higher than expected spending for the 1984-85 year as reported just three months earlier. This big upward revision in investment plans is highly pleasing to the Government. It shows that the business sector has great confidence in the economic policies of the Government, and that ought to be contrasted to those of the Party that is now offering the Hill package for improvement for small business, when in the last year of the Fraser Government private sector investment fell by some 12 per cent. The final economic indicator that I think ought to be considered in an analysis of performance in setting the outer constraints of what the environment will be is the drop in the level of industrial disputation. Industrial disputation unfortunately does affect small business, frequently in terms of deliveries and by imposing other impediments in terms of supply. We have the best record for 16 years in industrial disputes. The 1984-85 figures show a 28.3 per cent improvement on the amount of time lost for the comparable period in 1982-83. So in that area as well all of the indicators are positive. The environment has improved dramatically. Small businesses along with other business activity in Australia, are realising better profits. They are employing more people. They are looking forward to expanding. They are able to attract better interest rates . In addition to that, the prices and incomes accord has worked in such a way that real labour unit costs have fallen back to the level of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Australia has enjoyed the highest growth rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We as a government have delivered, and that has created the environment that I believe makes a mockery of all the things Senator Robert Hill said. Just on 18 months ago it was his Government that was in power and it was his Government that wreaked the damage to the economy that I have referred to. However, we have not sat back and said that because we have done things to the macroeconomy that have worked, the small business sector, in terms of its own specific needs and policies, should be left alone and no action should be taken. This Government is mindful of the fact that there are half a million small companies which are not involved in the rural sector and which contribute to 95 per cent of all enterprise and provide some 50 per cent of private sector employment. This Government has set itself the goal of encouraging the development of strong, viable, diverse and vibrant small business in Australia and it has moved generally in that direction not only at the macroeconomic level but also specifically in targeting policies for the small business community. Senator Missen —Just tell us them. Senator COOK —The Government will tell them to the Opposition. Of course the Opposition knows some of them and it will try to obfuscate the advantage they are to small business by introducing its new look plan in a moment. I assure Senator Missen that there will be no joy in that for him. Senator Button —There has not been much joy so far. Senator COOK —Exactly. Game, set and match and the rubber will come up at the end of the debate on this matter of public importance. Senator Button's Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce, has set up a special division for small business, thus upgrading the Government's attention to its needs. Also the Government has set up a Small Business Council which has an independent secretariat, and which is chaired by Mr Jack Boorne, the Chief Executive of H. I. Clements Pty Ltd, a successful small business manufacturer of medical equipment in Australia. It will put small business's voice on the Economic Planning Advisory Council-EPAC. All of those organisational steps are essential in realising this Government's commitment to finding consensus with that area of industry in the new reconciliation that this Government has brought to the divisive economic and industry framework of Australia. We have done all those things. Senator Robert Hill complained that the new Small Business Council is writing to small business for its opinion. I would expect that to be exactly what the Small Business Council would do because it is to act as a filter for encouraging small business to put forward its views, synthetise those views and advise government. That is precisely its role and to complain about it fulfilling its role, to complain about the Government seeking attitudes of small business, shows that a Liberal government is not prepared to take those steps. This Government has been sensitive to the needs of small business bound by the red tape that more frequently affects it, sometimes afflicts it. As small operators, small business is often unable to handle the forms and the work that are necessary to be done to respond to all of the regulations that beset it, so this Government set up a committee to review all of those regulations and it met last week for the first time. That, of course, involves State governments as well as the Territories. From the remarks made by Senator Hill, I understand that Senator Missen will shortly present to us an outline of how he intends to do so. It is too late, Senator Missen. The cab has left the rank. This Government is doing it, it is in the act of addressing those questions and will ultimately deal with them. In the Budget, in order to provide specific relief for small business and to encourage it to flourish in the economic environment we have set, this Government extended the investment allowance, improved the tax depreciation write-offs on non-residential buildings, established the nationwide advisory service on computer assisted manufacture, maintained funding for export development and trade promotion, and continued to support industrial research and technological development programs involving the technological transfer council-the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. Also the Government has set up a training program for which expenditure has been doubled in this Budget. It has provided for expenditure on training programs for small business and other back-up assistance to the level of $360,000 on the 1984-85 figures. In addition to this the Government has helped small business considerably by having the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia remove its borrowings from Loan Council approval and has significantly expanded the borrowing program of the Commonwealth Development Bank. There has been a massive increase in the Commonwealth Development Bank's small business borrowing programs. Small business has voted with its feet as it has taken advantage of that change. This Government has expanded the charter and borrowing program of the Australian Industry Development Corporation to enable it to increase the provision of equity and loan finance to industry, including small and medium sized firms. This also allows the AIDC to play a larger role in establishing new enterprises with growth prospects and in developing and commercialising Australian technology. The Government has introduced a scheme to stimulate the provision of equity capital for high growth, small business firms through generous personal taxation incentives for investors in management investment corporations. Those are some of the things that have been done. I conclude my remarks in the debate on this matter of public importance in the knowledge that my other colleagues in debate will explore those things in greater detail. But let me come back to the subject of this discussion-small business. It has been noted that the Treasurer of Australia, Paul Keating, was recognised by the Euromoney magazine as the finance minister of the year, a notable achievement for any Treasurer. It is an award which, I believe, has never been given to a Liberal Treasurer. The basis for his winning that award was the action that he and this Government have taken in deregulating the finance market, which must help the small business community to develop even further. In today's Bulletin the polls indicate that the Government enjoys a 55 per cent approval rating compared with the Liberals' 37 per cent approval rating. Small business will rejoice in those figures because the greatest damage that could ever be done to it, given the performance of the Liberal Party, is for the Opposition to be elected. Small business will rejoice in the certain knowledge that that will not happen on 1 December. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(3.46) —I commence by complimenting Senator Robert Hill on the topic which he has chosen for today's matter of public importance. I will read it to the Senate so that it can be clearly understood: The Government's failure to recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy and to implement policies that will encourage growth and employment opportunities within the sector. Senator Hill has been brutally frank and I admire his integrity. He is not talking about this Government's failure; he is talking about governments failure . He is talking about all governments and I think that that is a very important distinction which needs to be drawn. Senator Hill would have recognised long since that it is not just this Government but all of its predecessors which have failed to recognise the importance of small business and to implement policies to help small business, as distinct from proclaiming policies which it promises to implement in the future but never quite gets around to. It is quite fascinating to look at the history-it is not a very long one-of political parties discovering small businesses. The Australian Labor Party discovered small businesses in 1983 and put out a schedule of promises for small businesses, a few of which it has kept. It is to be commended for those few promises to small businesses which it has kept. I gather from Senator Hill's statement that the Liberal and National parties have just discovered small businesses. I make that statement because although they may have had policies about small business in the past they never implemented any of those policies when they were in government. It is fascinating to hear the diatribe about the present Government's inability to implement its policies without any reference being made to the failure to implement Liberal Party policies in the past, which would have helped small businesses and which would in turn have helped this country through its unemployment crisis. One must ask: Why is small business suddenly becoming important? The cynical view might be that big business donations to political parties now have to be revealed. So instead of receiving a few large donations from the larger enterprises around Australia, some political parties are hoping to get a lot of small donations which do not have to be revealed. That is a fascinating theory, but perhaps it is a little too cynical. Perhaps the reason is that small businesses, and only small businesses, can permanently resolve the unemployment problem. Of course, unemployment is a vital issue in this election campaign. It is fair to suggest that this debate was brought on to publicise the Liberal Party's new policy paper on small businesses and to invite people in small businesses-as Senator Hill did-to have a look at it. But in politics, as far as the electors are concerned, it is the actions that are important, not the promises. The policies are not worth the paper they are written on if they have no currency in Parliament and unfortunately political parties' policies on small businesses have absolutely no currency in this Parliament or this nation. Both the Labor and Liberal parties policies, when converted into actions have been detrimental to small businesses. I indicated that small businesses are important in the employment field because they are usually more labour intensive than big firms. In the United States of America the whole net increase in jobs since 1967-15 million of them-has been due to small firms. Another fascinating fact is that young people are much more likely to be employed in small businesses than in large enterprises, simply because small businesses have a much more flexible approach to their employment. Small businesses are able to take on board young people who may lack skills, training and educational qualifications-the criteria which are laid down quite rigidly by the larger enterprises. We need to look at the problems of youth unemployment when we are looking at small businesses because if we can encourage the development and growth of small businesses around this nation we will be able to assist young people to get into employment, and older people to get their jobs back. It is typical of the sort of approach that all governments have to small businesses that they cannot trust them to do their own thing. The establishment of the Small Business Advisory Council is so typical of that. Of the 16 members of that Council, only seven represent small business. Less than half of them represent small business. Five of them are bureaucrats, and four come from miscellaneous fields such as the trade union movement, accounting and finance and, for some strange reason, the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures. The initiatives that the Australian Democrats would like to see introduced into this Parliament and carried out by this Government or any future government have been demonstrated by our legislative approach. As you will be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Australian Democrats have introduced more private members Bills than have ever been introduced to a parliament or to all the parliaments since Federation. The reason for that is to give the lead. For the first time there is a political party which does not have the power of the government but which does have an influence over government, an influence which has already resulted in this Government adopting one of our private member's Bills. Others that I strongly recommend the Government to take on board-and I am willing to let it take full credit for them-include the Corporation (Employee-owned Co- operatives) Bill 1984 which gives the power and the support to groups of employees who want to salvage their own company before it goes under by forming it into a co-operative with the help of government. Another is the Arbitration ( Contract Carriers and Bailee Drivers) Bill 1984 which involves a typical Aussie small business. Yet owner-drivers are shot at and taken advantage of by the larger businesses because they are so vulnerable and have no access to an arbitration system. We also introduced legislation on the collective bargaining system to enable smaller enterprises to sit around the table, decide to break away from the trade union system and develop their own industrial agreement to suit that particular enterprise in that particular industry. This might not be relevant to the larger enterprises but it would be most suitable for the smaller ones. I appeal to the Government to take on board some of these initiatives that the Australian Democrats have put forward by way of private member's Bills. I also suggest that it is time that the Government listened to us when we appeal to it on behalf of small businesses to do such things as take away the sales tax on freight. We have been appealing to the Government for 18 months to keep the promise it made in opposition that it would not tax tyre retreads. That tax is still there despite the fact that there is a- Senator Button —We did not make any promise about that. That is not true. Senator JACK EVANS —I am sorry, Senator, there is a promise in writing, and I will produce it for you later. The courts have ruled that that is now illegal but the blessed tax is still there and tyre retreaders are still going out of business and sacking employees. We are trying to help the rural industry by getting rid of the tax on honey mead and by stopping the increased levies on meat and livestock exports. We ask the Government to listen to us on all these initiatives because we have the voice of small business in our ear. Obviously it cannot get to the ear of big government. We also appeal to the Government to keep the income equalisation deposits for farmers and expand them for small businesses because there is potentially a great benefit there for small businesses. I appeal to this Government and to any government in this country to get off the backs of small businesses. Both parties, Liberal and Labor, should get off the backs of small businesses. The Government should get rid of the Division 7 tax which frustrates small businesses trying to compete with big businesses which do not have to pay a Division 7 tax for retained profits. That has to be a definite deterrent to small businesses and a substantial advantage to big businesses. Yet this Government lives with that and will not do a thing about it . Neither would its predecessor. How can they dare to pretend that they are on the side of small businesses? The Government should help small businesses to pay their sales taxes out of their customers' funds instead of having to meet them out of their own funds by delaying the time in which those sales taxes are called up. It should give small businesses the 60 days they need to get the money in so that they can pay the tax. The Government should also get rid of payroll tax which has to be one of the most vicious taxes this country has at the moment because it is a tax on employing people. Senator Maguire —But that is a State tax. Senator JACK EVANS —The Government could get rid of it by subsidising the States and lightening the burden for them. The Government could even get rid of it, Senator Maguire, by dropping it in the Australian Capital Territory where it has the power, but it will not do so. Provisional tax payments should be payable monthly instead of the whole lot having to be met in lump sums. Most importantly , the Government should call off the bureaucrats and get rid of the time consuming form filling and costs of servicing governments at all levels in this country. It should help small businesses with special interest rates for small enterprises because they lack the borrowing power of big businesses. I suggest that it could also give them access to a new legal structure which provides them with both the benefits of partnerships and those of corporate status. Let us face it-today government is in the hands of big business. All governments in this country are in that position. We saw that in the way that this Government handled petrol retail outlets. It bowed to the pressure of the multinationals to keep a number of petrol retail outlets in the hands of the multinationals. The small business people want to break that link, that control, that the oil companies have over the small petrol retail outlets. The Government 's policies continue to ignore the needs of small businesses. Its banking policy , its industrial relations policy, its industry policy-these policies look after the steel industry, the motor vehicle industry and the mining industry but ignore small business. It becomes more and more obvious that governments in this country have no capacity to plan and to cater for the great diversification of small businesses and the evolution and the proliferation of Australian entrepreneurs; and I doubt whether governments can cope with the growing new service industries. This Government, as with the previous Government, regards small as beautiful in any context other than in a business context, for Australian small businesses are consistently ignored by governments. Maybe that is because big governments and big bureaucracies relate more easily to big business. I return to the subject of this matter of public importance: The Government's-- all governments of Australia-- failure to recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy and to implement-- not to proclaim-- policies that will encourage growth and employment opportunities within the sector. That could not have been more truthfully stated, and it could not have been more ignored by this Government and previous governments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.01) —I support the matter of public importance put forward by my colleague Senator Hill. It relates to: The Government's failure to recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy and to implement policies that will encourage growth and employment opportunities within the sector. I immediately take issue with my friend Senator Jack Evans who, in an interesting speech, put up the proposition, which is quite true, that all governments in the past have failed to take into account sufficiently the position of small business and have failed to take the necessary action to strengthen it. But those governments that were last at the barrier, those recently in existence which have failed to do this, during this period of enormous unemployment, have the greater responsibility. They must accept responsibility for not having done something before now. Interestingly enough, today the Government has put up Senator Peter Cook to lead for it in opposition to our proposal. The irony of that is that in doing so , the Government puts up the man who, as secretary of the Western Australian Trades and Labour Council, did more to ruin small business than even Bob Hawke did in his period as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing who has come before us today to lead the case for the Government. It will be remembered that he had very little to say about small business; it was about the general Christmas-like attitude of the Government that everything in the garden was lovely. It will be remembered that early in his speech he claimed that small business had recovered, that there was more profit and that small business did better in this Government's first year in office than it had done previously. He was forgetting, of course, that there was such a thing as a drought in Australia and that the difficulties of all small businesses, all the country businesses, all the transport businesses and all of those undertakings that were depressed in that period, these problems were wiped away not by the stroke of genius of this Government but by the hand of God which brought rain to our shores and, perhaps, the benefit of the American recovery at the same time. What this Government did not do and has never done is to face up to the reality that there are long term problems that particularly affect small business that have never been tackled. Senator Cook went on to tell us how we could not come forward with policies now . It was no good; 'the cab had left the rank'; it was too late altogether. To some extent, Senator Jack Evans went the same way. He said: 'No, it is not policies; it is no good putting them forward. Really, it is what you can do'. But, of course, those of us who are not in government, and that includes Senator Jack Evans's party, are not in a position to do these things at present. The analysis of blueprints for the future, whether they be in the form of private member's Bills, which Senator Jack Evans rightly maintained were a good initiative in the Parliament in showing up such things, or in the form of detailed plans, such as our new policies on small business and the policies which Senator Peter Rae and I launched yesterday, on regulation, deregulation and the reform of the regulatory process, will provide an indication of what we shall do in government when we are elected on 1 December. It is important that we be judged on those things. Senator Cook claimed that the Government had set up a Small Business Council. I think that Senator Jack Evans exploded that one. Most of the members of that Council are not small businessmen, and we know that it is only in the last few weeks that this Government has discovered the problems of regulation and the problems of small businessmen, and it now proposes to set up further committees on the subject. So in the next Parliament we might learn what the Government proposes to do about it. I turn, therefore, to the question which is the basis of the second part of our case today, the crushing burden of regulation on small business and what we shall do about it, and what the Labor Government, if re-elected, will not do about it. I say immediately that we recognise that this is one of the great burdens on small business. It is not the only one-Senator Hill has pointed out many others-but it is a very important one that affects the whole of the economic ability of small businessmen. To use Senator Cook's words, let us remember that 95 per cent of businesses in this country are small businesses. The degree to which regulation has grown over the years and has caused small business to be greatly affected is to be seen in statistics contained in a very fine report prepared by the Confederation of Australian Industry in 1980. Of course, the position has grown worse since then. At that time, the Confederation pointed out to the public that in the last 20 years to that date, Federal and State governments passed 16,000-odd Acts of parliament and over 32,000 statutory rules or regulations-a total of 49,000 statutory instruments pressing burdens upon business and, in particular, small business. The Confederation also pointed out that in the 10 years to that date, Federal government regulatory expenditure had increased by 333 per cent on similar expenditure 10 years previously. Those are crushing burdens on the taxpayer and on the small businessman. To complete these formidable statistics, which, as I say, have grown since that date, we had at that time 16,000 persons employed in private industry solely for the purpose of complying with the requirements of Federal regulatory agencies, and when one adds to that number the Federal regulators, one finds that about 28,500 people were employed in this task. Do we wonder that our tax burden is high? Do we wonder, therefore, that small business is burdened with these things because of the extent to which this has grown and has not been attended to by government over the years? The result, as estimated in our policy announced yesterday, is that about $6 billion a year is spent on complying with State and Federal regulations. That is a burden that we cannot allow to continue. What is the Hawke Government's response? What has happened? What is the late death-bed repentance that we hear from it? Two or three weeks ago we heard the Hawke Government's response to the report made to it by the Business Council of Australia, which report I have with me. It is an excellent report and one which, in a few pages, points out the crushing burden of regulation in this country. Our policies cover every item raised by the Business Council. But the response by Prime Minister Hawke was to say: 'I shall form a tripartite committee, and seek agreement between three-the Government, the unions and the business people' . We know who will miss out in that equation. The people of Australia know that when final conclusions are arrived at, they will not get what they want at all. Why is that so? One has only to look at the policies of the Labor Party to know the things that it is obliged to do. According to a report in the Australian of 11 October, Mr Hawke suddenly called together the business organisations for the purpose of looking at the possibility of setting up a deregulation review committee to advise on how many of the existing regulations applying to business can be removed. Mr Hawke told the Business Council that he is now convinced that after 84 years of Federation we have accumulated an excessive and often irrelevant and obstructive body of laws and regulations. When did he learn that? Why did he not learn that early in the period of his Ministry? Senator Cook —Why didn't you do something about it? You put them there. Senator MISSEN —As Senator Cook says, why did he not do something about it? It has been accumulated. It was there for him to observe. It has taken him nearly 20 months to discover that he should do something about it. He has decided to do so partly because the Business Council has asked him to do so and partly because in the last few days he realised that the policy on which members of our parties , such as Senator Peter Rae and I, have worked for years has been adopted by our parties and was about to be delivered. Senator Cook —Why isn't he in this debate? Senator MISSEN —It is no good Senator Cook looking back into the far distant past. His Party is in Government now and it did not do anything until a few weeks ago. I suggest that the Government's present proposal cannot be trusted by the Australian people. One only has to read what was decided by the Australian Labor Party National Conference in July. The people who may have wanted to do something were 'rolled' by the majority. The resolution which was carried at that Conference states: Conference affirms that interventionist policies which are closely monitored and comprehensive in nature are necessary to bring about the growth which is required on a sustained basis if unemployment is to fall on a continuous path. So interventionist policies which are comprehensive in nature are required. Where is the talk about taking away regulation and controls? The Conference resolution concluded: Fundamental to the interventionist policies required is a planning mechanism. So one can well see that the decisions of the Labor Party are in that direction. I refer to my unfortunate State of Victoria, which labours under the Cain Labor Government. In its first year it managed a great push of putting on 10,000 new public servants. That was the Victorian Government's idea of deregulation. The Victorian Legal and Constitutional Committee has investigated a Bill which the Hon. Alan Hunt, the Deputy Leader of my Party in the Legislative Council, proposed. That Committee has produced a 400-page report which recommends very much along the lines of that Bill and very much along the lines of the policy which our parties in Canberra have adopted. That Committee in its report-I remind honourable senators that it is an all-party report-said most interesting things about the obstruction which it received from the Cain Government. Paragraph 6.2 of the report states: The Committee notes that under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 it has power to send for (and receive) any papers and records relevant to its inquiries . It would be regrettable indeed if a Parliamentary Committee were constrained, by lack of co-operation of any government department or other authority or body, in particular the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, to utilise its powers under the Act. The next paragraph sets out the disturbing facts of which the Committee learned. Prior to the attendance of two departments to give evidence, a telex was sent to them requiring them to conform with the guidelines for public servants responding to parliamentary committee inquiries and to adhere to the statement of the Victorian Government on the question of regulation review and revocation. Later another department told the Committee that it had riding instructions from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as to how it should conduct itself before the Committee. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Committee concluded: By formulating what it termed a policy statement as its response to the Committee and circulating it to government departments on this basis (requesting that they adhere to it) the Department of the Premier and Cabinet appears to have pre empted the findings of the Committee on the Bill which was referred by the Parliament to the Committee on a bi-partisan basis for review and report. Additionally, this served to inhibit witnesses unnecessarily in what appeared to be a non-controversial enquiry. If one looks further at the conclusions of that report- Senator Cook —When are you going to tell us the regulations you are going to pull out? Senator MISSEN —I know this hurts. It is no use saying that the Labor Party will support these measures. We are requesting the public of Australia to look at the policy which we have set down and the commitment we have made in regard to deregulation. That policy sets out how we will go about deregulation of industry and how we will tackle it- Senator Cook —Which regulations? Senator MISSEN —There are thousands of regulations. The honourable senator would not know. Senator Cook —Tell us one. Senator MISSEN —I will not waste my time telling him that. Our policy will also review existing regulations, to make sure they are still appropriate. We will reform the whole process of making regulations in this country. They will not be brought down in the Parliament and then be binding on the public. Instead the public will be given prior opportunity to read them. Regulatory impact statements will be obtained which will tell them what the effect of the regulations will be. That and the further involvement of the Parliament, which will occur under our policies-the Parliament does not do enough at the moment- are things which I invite the public of Australia and the business community of Australia to read and study. Yesterday in this Parliament the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, in answering a question on increases in jobs, had it pointed out to him that more than 50 per cent of the jobs created since last October are government jobs-public administration and community jobs-which of course are paid for by the taxpayer. The Minister said: 'So what?' He does not concern himself and the Labor Party does not concern itself with that matter. We suggest that in government we will do the things which are necessary to justify the faith of small business in our parties. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.15) —I oppose the matter of public importance which was brought on for discussion this afternoon by Senator Robert Hill. The matter of public importance reads: The Government's failure to recognise the importance of small business to the Australian economy and to implement policies that will encourage growth and employment opportunities within the sector. One of the most important things brought about by the present Government to boost the economic fortunes of small business has been the general improvement in the economic climate in this country. The general expansion of economic activity under this Government has been the single biggest factor which has led to a rise in the economic fortunes of small business. Small business is benefiting significantly from the expanded economy. Turnovers are up; business surpluses are up, and small businesses are sharing in the record 10 per cent real growth which occurred in Australian in the 12 months to June 1984. That was the fastest growth in this country in 25 years and the fastest in the Western world in the last financial year. More economic planning in Australia as a result of the establishment of the Economic Planning Advisory Council will boost economic growth in Australia in the next financial year. It is important to note , as Senator Cook pointed out this afternoon, that small business has a formal role in EPAC. The economic growth which we will see in the coming financial year will mean higher production for small business, higher turnover, higher surpluses, more jobs and better capacity utilisation by small business with fewer idle plants and fewer idle resources. The prices and incomes accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions makes it possible to have an expanding economy because that accord enables expanded economic activity with lower inflationary consequences. One result of the prices and incomes accord is that at the moment small businesses are not facing wage increases because of the low consumer price index results for the March and June quarters of this year. They are not having to pay out wage rises at the moment and that is of enormous benefit to them. The reason they are not having to pay out wage rises is partly the policies in the Budget, whereby employees, instead of receiving a money wage rise, are getting a tax cut to boost their disposable income. From 1 November employees will receive a $7.60 a week tax cut which is equivalent to a 4 per cent wage rise which does not have to be paid at this time by small business and other businesses. Another important factor from which small business is benefiting is the reduction in Australia's rate of inflation. When the previous Government was in office inflation was running at an annual rate of 11 1/2 per cent. That rate has been cut in the 12 months to June this year to a mere 6 1/2 per cent. The lower inflation rate means big advantages for small business. Planning by small business is better. It enables more accurate planning of investment decisions. It enables better calculation of rates of return on investments. Production decisions are more accurate. Decisions to hold stocks are more economically based and less waste is involved in stock holding. One of the key reasons why small business will benefit from the lower inflation rate relates to Australia's trade with other economies. The lower inflation rate in Australia means that Australian small businesses which are trying to export overseas, or those which are competing with imported goods into Australia, are in a much more competitive position. When the previous Government was in office our inflation rate was well above that of our trading partners. Now our inflation rate is on a par with that of other countries, if not below it. Another influence of lower inflation rates on the economy is the impact they are having in reducing interest rates. Of course, small business depends very heavily on borrowing funds. Borrowing is one of the key ways in which small business finances its activities. Many small businesses have overdrafts. It is very interesting to look this afternoon at recent interest rate trends in areas in which small businesses are involved because under the previous government-the Fraser-Howard Liberal Administration-very large rises in interest rates had to be paid by small businesses. I refer to interest on overdrafts of less than $100 ,000 which would be held by those in small businesses. Interest rates on overdrafts as at July 1980 stood at 10 1/2 per cent. In July 1981 there was a 2 per cent jump to 12 1/2 and in July 1982 a further jump to 14 1/2 per cent. This is a 4 per cent rise in interest rates paid on small overdrafts in the space of just two years under the previous Government. I am pleased to say that that interest rate spiral has been flattened out by this Government and that interest rates are no longer rising for small businesses, and as a result their cash position is much improved. The proprietors of small businesses will also be among those who will benefit from the tax cuts which will be introduced on 1 November. Those proprietors who are individual traders will benefit from the tax cuts which apply to all incomes from 1 November. Those earning incomes to $28,000 will receive $7.60 a week in tax reductions and tax cuts will also apply above that level. There were, of course, other taxation changes in the Budget. Businesses can now transfer losses between companies or businesses in the one group for taxation purposes. I think that move will have a significant effect in improving the cash flow position of a number of Australian small businesses. More importantly, it will cut the paperwork involved in shuffling profits and losses between the various companies in an associated group. The Budget also provides for higher depreciation allowances for non-residential buildings. Instead of the previous rate of allowance for depreciation of 2 1/2 per cent per annum, the rate has been increased to 4 per cent, which will allow a quicker write-off against income tax for income producing buildings. Like other Australian businesses, small businesses are benefiting enormously from the reduction in industrial disputes in this country. They are benefiting from the greater degree of consensus in the community, the lower levels of confrontation and the greater levels of harmony. No longer are small businesses facing disruption from industrial disputes to the degree that they were under the previous Government. As a result of the various measures I have mentioned this afternoon-the strong economic growth in Australia; the rise in labour productivity and the lower inflation rate-the Budget is able to forecast an increase in business surpluses for this financial year. The share of business surpluses in gross domestic product will rise by a full percentage point from 15 per cent to 16 per cent in this financial year. It is very important to note that some key small business sectors of the economy are doing very well indeed at the moment. It is important to note that small business dominates particular sectors; it is not spread uniformly across the economy. It is not represented in the oil refining industry , for example, or in the motor vehicle industry but it is heavily represented in the retail trade and it is very heavily represented in the home building sector. It is very important to analyse what is happening in those sectors because that analysis will give us a clue to what is happening overall to the small business sector of the economy. Earlier this afternoon Senator Cook referred to some of the trends in the home building industry. That industry was one of the foci in our Budget last year. It was one of the areas we decided to stimulate because we could see that by doing so it would create many more jobs in Australia. The first home owners scheme which was introduced by this Government has had a major effect in stimulating home building activity and therefore in improving the fortunes of small business because small business tends to dominate the home building sector. In the financial year which has just ended, 1983-84, there were 150,000 approvals for new dwellings. That was an increase of 34,000 over the previous year, or a rise of 29 1/2 per cent. So a major boost was given to the small business sector as a result of the policies of the Hawke Government. Let us turn to the retail trade area because retailing and commerce are key small business sectors of the economy. In the 12 months to June retail sales for the first time in a long time actually outpaced the inflation rate. Real retail sales grew by over 7 per cent in the 12 months to June, compared with an inflation rate of 6 1/2 per cent. So for the first time in a long time we have seen real growth in the Australian economy, and real growth in turnover for small businesses, including shops. I am pleased to predict that following the introduction of the income tax cuts in November there will be a significant rise in retail sales. We will find that, from 1 November, these cuts will give a real kick-along to retail turnover as people go out and spend and further boost the economy. Under this Government small business is expanding. We have given leadership to the economy. I refer simply to an opinion poll released this morning which indicates that Mr Hawke is preferred by something like three-quarters of the people as leader of this country. His rival is preferred by about 14 or 15 per cent of the people. They know we are giving leadership. They know we are giving direction to Australia and they know that the business climate in this country has improved. It is absolute nonsense for the Opposition to talk about small business dynamism and opportunities for small business resulting from its policies. One has to look only at the record of the period from 1975 to 1983, to which Senator Richardson referred today by interjection. In that period, under the Fraser-Howard Government, unfortunately small business was faced with negative dynamism. The fact is that bankruptcy in this country soared under the previous Government. I put on record some of the figures which indicate just how many small businesses in this country went to the wall under the previous Government. They went to the wall in record numbers. The previous Government caused business failures, wrecked investments and wrecked employment opportunities and the savings of many Australian families who had invested in small businesses were wiped out. Let us look at the bankruptcy figures which show the downward spiral in the economy which occurred under the previous Government. In 1981-82 there were 4,500 bankruptcies. In 1982-83, the last year of the Liberal Government, there were 5,100-an increase in that period of 12 1/2 per cent. I am pleased to say that in the financial year just ended, 1983-84 for the first time in a long time the number of bankruptcies in Australia was reduced. Under the Labor Government in the last financial year bankruptcies were reduced from 5,100 to 4, 800-a reduction of 5 per cent. Earlier this afternoon Senator Missen referred to his unfortunate State of Victoria. It just happens that in the last financial year Victoria was the leading State in bankruptcy reduction. A 15 per cent reduction in one year in bankruptcies in Victoria and in my State of South Australia is a pretty good achievement. It certainly makes nonsense of the claims made this afternoon by Senator Missen. In the Liberal Government's whole period in office, from 1975 to 1983, there was only one year in that seven-year period in which the number of bankruptcies fell. I ask honourable senators to make a comparison between that year and the last year of the previous Labor Government. In the last year the previous Labor Government was in office-1975-76-there were 1,900 bankruptcies in this country. In the last year of the Liberal Government, to which I have just referred, there were 5,100 business bankruptcies-171 per cent rise in business failures under the previous Government. I think that this afternoon we can take with a grain of salt the concern expressed by the Liberals for small business. It was recently said in this place that under the Liberal Party there was only one growth industry in Australia and that was the tax avoidance industry. I am not happy to report this afternoon that there were in fact two growth industries in Australia under the Liberal Party from 1975 to 1983-tax avoidance and bankruptcies. Never before did receivers or liquidators do so well. It was a growth industry. The rise in bankruptcies under the previous Government was appalling. Three sectors were hit particularly hard-building and construction, transport, notably road transport, and commerce. I am pleased to say that as a result of the policies of the present Government the level of bankruptcies in Australia is now declining. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.32) —I take advantage of this opportunity to discuss the problems which the policies of this Government have imposed upon small business in Australia. Despite the enormous contribution that has been made by the small business sector to the economy, its lack of industrial or political muscle has enabled this Labor Government to ignore completely the small business sector, both in terms of the agreements made with the trade union movement and the legislation that has been introduced. Thus the small business sector has found itself locked out of the decision-making processes, yet ironically it is particularly vulnerable to the impact of decisions that have been forced upon it, particularly in the wage setting arena. We all know that defining what constitutes small business is a rather subjective matter because there is no precise definition. The most recent report on small business activities was produced in 1980 by Ibis Corporate Services Pty Ltd entitled 'The Enterprises of Australia'. The report provides us with some statistics which show how significant the small business sector is in this economy. In 1980, 99 per cent of the estimated 750,000 enterprises in Australia employed fewer than 100 people. They accounted for 61 per cent of total employment in the Australian community. Some 700,000 Australian enterprises, that is, 93 per cent of all enterprises, employed between one and nine people. These small businesses employing less than 10 people accounted for 38 per cent of private sector employment. The report also predicted that between 1980 and 2000, 80 per cent of new jobs would be created in the small business sector. Of course, that was before we were afflicted with a Labor government. Those statistics demonstrate the vital role that small business plays within the community. The importance of small business does not lie merely in quantifiable economic terms. However, the inherent flexibility of smaller operations enables them to respond quickly to the market. The ability of small business to adapt and innovate according to changing economic circumstances has been widely recognised. Small businesses are the foundation, the heart and the strength of the Australian economy. A report to the President of the United States entitled 'The State of Small Business', transmitted to Congress in March 1983, pointed to the results of a study completed in the previous year which examined the relationship between industrial concentration, firm size and technical innovation. The President's report stated: The Gellman study indicates that small businesses contribute a disproportionately greater share of product innovation and bring these products to market faster than larger businesses . . . Small firms produce two and a half times as many innovations as large firms relative to the number of people employed. The Gellman study also found that the time necessary to bring an innovation to market averaged 2.22 years for small business compared with 3.05 years for large firms. That quotation illustrates very well the point that small business plays a vital role in determining the long term health of the economy by providing the necessary flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. Far from encouraging small businesses, however, this Labor Government seems determined to stifle innovation and flexibility in our economy, with the aid of the trade union movement and its insistence that the centralised wage fixing system must be adhered to, no matter what. Wage indexation through the centralised and rigid system presently prevailing, which this Government encourages and implements, takes no account of the ability of individual firms and employers to pay the increases. One might well ask, for example, a begging question: Does it make sense to increase wages in industries that are laying off employees, as is presently the case in many sectors? As we all know, that underlines the approach of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Government's bedfellow, at least for the moment, in respect of the prices and incomes accord. Its attitude is: 'Look after the employee', or, as one might put it: 'Look after our own and to hell with the unemployed'. It sees its role as being hand in hand with the Government, pressing for higher wages and greater benefits at the expense of small business and the unemployed. Let us look at employment in the private sector, the area where we find small business. Yesterday in a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, I referred to the areas of agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transport and storage. In all those areas there has been a net decline in the number employed since this Labor Government came to office. The very marked decline in these areas has been the result of what one might define as labour shedding, primarily due to the unbearable labour costs. This Government's policy of full wage indexation locks the country into a rigid structure of absolute real wages and relative wage rates, irrespective of general economic conditions and irrespective of which industries are expanding and which are contracting. It is interesting to note that countries which have the most flexible labour markets have done relatively well with respect to employment growth. An estimate of investment requirements embodies an implicit judgment about how flexible labour and output markets can be made. The importance of this point is perhaps most clearly brought out by noting the striking fact that, with roughly similar investment trends in North America and Europe during the past decade, employment growth in North America was more than 10 times greater than that of Europe. Again, referring to the United States of America, even when aggregate investment was not particularly high, as it was not in previous years, greater labour mobility, more flexible real and relative wages, and other factors relating to the freedom of entrepreneurial initiative in small or new enterprises led to the rapid creation of new jobs. In Japan, because of the capacity of the service sector to absorb or shed workers and the wage flexibility provided to larger enterprises by the bonus system, the degree of flexibility has been roughly similar. Senator Cook —We're leading the world. Tell us about Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The honourable senator will find where he is going very shortly. When one talks of flexibility in wages in the United States it is not without significance to note that in recent times in a number of industries such as the motor car and airline industries the workers took wage cuts to preserve jobs. That is just not possible under the system of honourable senators opposite , under the inflexible and centralised system that is presently imposed upon us by the Labor Government. I might add that, due to the deleterious effects of systems such as ours, they have been abandoned or limited in countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Iceland. However, that is just not the case in Australia; it is just not possible. Small businesses are faced with a situation where the wages and conditions they must offer employees are determined by bureaucratic organisations without reference to their individual circumstances. There is no flexibility in the system to alter award rates and conditions to take account of the ability of the employer to pay. Very often decisions by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission appear to be based, and certainly are based, on political grounds rather than on economic considerations. The Arbitration Commission's decision to award across the board wage rises in line with the consumer price index was based on the need to implement the agreement made between the Labor Government and the trade union movement. It had nothing to do with small business, employees or the unemployed. It was simply a deal between the ACTU and the Labor Party for short term political expediency. Economic logic would indicate that by not raising wages unemployment would have had a chance to fall more rapidly. The problem for small businesses is finding the money to pay these wage increases. They do not have the resources of larger enterprises and, working on smaller margins, they are not readily able to absorb increased costs. At the very least those costs mean a reduction in profits and consequently less money to invest and expand their operations to create more jobs. They do not, of course, have shareholders' funds . They do not have the fat and the resources that public companies have to draw upon during lean times. Increased costs simply mean reduced profits, no profits or bankruptcy. Wages are only one element of the cost of an employee. I quote: The magnitude of the problem may be seen from the following figures on building industry wage costs. The figures are based on analysis by the New South Wales and Victorian employers federations and verified by other employer organisations throughout Australia. In the 10-year period since 1 January 1974 the wage costs of the carpenter and labourer have risen by 250 per cent and the fitter by 213 per cent. The on-costs of employing them have risen by nearly 690% for carpenters, 650% for labourers and over 500% for fitters. The on-costs include annual leave, leave loadings, long service leave, sick leave, payroll tax, workers compensation and public holidays. Over the same period the C.P.I. rose by 183.54%, average weekly earnings by 217 .5% and average award earnings by 93.2%. . . . In fact labour on-costs add more than 43% to direct wage costs. . . . . In the recent national wage case the C.A.I. pointed out that 18.5% of the wages bill consists of on-costs going direct to employees and 16.7% of the wages bill is represented by on-costs not received by employees directly. The principal items in this latter group are payroll tax, workers compensation and superannuation. The same C.A.I. submission showed the annual leave, payroll tax, workers compensation and other insurance premiums together amount to well over half of the total contribution to on-costs. That gives an example of the sorts of costs that have been borne by small business as a result of the inflexible system we presently have. If time will permit, I will touch upon the job security test, which has the full imprimatur and full support of this Government and which is bankrupting small business and creating higher and higher unemployment. If I have further time, I will make some reference to the Government's intention to remove sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act, which is one of the few things which allow small business to have some protection against the giant trade union movement and the weak-kneed monolithic multinational corporations which honourable senators opposite are all screaming about. Increasing employment costs at a time of economic hardship will of course worsen the plight of small business. Making increased costs an adjunct of technological change will inhibit efficiency and, in the long term, economic growth. The job security ruling is doing exactly that. As I have said, in many ways small businesses work in a much more constrained environment than larger enterprises. Taking on a single new employee represents a substantial investment . There is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the small business community because it is being forced to make that investment on terms and conditions which it plays no part in determining. To turn to the more positive side of things, I wish to touch upon the constructive features of the Liberal and National parties' industrial relations policy which will give small business a breathing space and allow it to expand and develop. Most importantly, under a coalition government, employers and employees will be given the scope to negotiate variations in award wages and conditions according to their own particular circumstances. This will result in far greater flexibility in the wage fixing system while still protecting employees by setting minimum wages and conditions according to the capacity of the individual employers and of the economy to pay. Small businesses will particularly benefit under a coalition government because they will have the scope to reduce wages where employers and employees unanimously agree that this is necessary to save jobs or preserve the future of the enterprise. A coalition government will also ensure that awards are enforceable by awarding damages for breach of an award or contract of employment. Thus both the employer and the employee would have an avenue of redress in cases where awards were breached, regardless of their relative industrial strength. The existing legislation on industrial relations is extremely complex and indeed virtually incomprehensible to other than specialist industrial relations staff. Small businesses can afford neither specialist advice nor the time to puzzle through the maze of restrictions without help. They will greatly benefit from the simplification of the legislation proposed by the coalition's policy. Of course, the coalition will also reopen the job security case so that the decision can be re-examined in the full light of its implications, particularly for employment. I am not advocating anything special for small business; I am not advocating special treatment nor is small business. But I do not believe that small business ought to be treated in the manner in which it has been treated by the Labor Government. It is entitled to fair treatment, which under this Government has been so very badly lacking. Given the right economic environment there is tremendous potential within the small business sector for job creation. This potential is being suffocated by a rigid system of wage fixation which is essentially incompatible with the flexible free market conditions which would enable small business to thrive and prosper. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order. Under standing order 364 I ask that Senator Crichton-Browne table the document from which he has been quoting. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —You can have the bits and pieces if they mean anything to you. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.45) —I wish to speak on this matter of public importance which amounts to a fairly poor attempt on the part of the Opposition to attack the Government's handling of small business. Yesterday when I spoke on a discussion of a matter of public importance on taxation, I spoke of the unmitigated gall of the Opposition in raising that as an issue. I suggested that perhaps the appropriate way for the Australian people to judge on 1 December would be for them to look at the record of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia in those dark seven years under Fraser and Howard and to compare what happened then with what has happened since this Government took office. Once again, in the area of small business, I invite honourable senators opposite in particular and the Australian people again to compare the record. I would have thought that when small businessmen were looking at their position and how they could improve their lot in life, they would look for a strong economic recovery and such indicators as economic demand and increased profits. They would look for lower interest rates, lower inflation and more employment. Let us look at the Government's record over the last year in creating a favourable economic environment in which small business can exist and indeed prosper. The total economy grew by about 10 per cent in real terms. The rate of inflation was halved, from 11 per cent under the regime of the discredited former Treasurer to about 5 per cent now. Interest rates, surely the backbone of small businesses, are something that they really worry about. The bank bill rate under those years of Fraser and Howard was 16 per cent. Within one year it came down to 11 per cent. Within one year finance was available at a cost that small business could afford. Once again we have begun to see private investment rise. Turning to employment, in 20 months it has increased by one quarter of a million ; that is, 250,000 more people are earning increased income which they spend and from which small business sees the benefit. If we compare those dark years with the present and with the record of countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development we see just what Liberal-National Party government does for Australians and for small business. In 1982-83 we had an inflation rate of 10.8 per cent compared with 8.5 per cent in OECD countries. Our gross domestic product growth rate was nil. In the last two quarters it was negative under Fraser. The OECD average for the period was 2.5 per cent growth. That is hardly a record to make Australia the envy of the world. But this Government has set about repairing that lasting damage that Fraser and Howard wreaked upon our economy and at last we are showing some success. Small business is growing again. Looking further at the record, in 1983-84 the profits of unincorporated businesses increased by $4 billion. In 1982-83, the last year that the rabble on the other side had control, there was a fall of over $1 billion in the profits of unincorporated businesses. In 1983-84 company profits increased by $5.5 billion. Senator Crichton-Browne —What have you done economically to cause it? Senator RICHARDSON —From 1981 to 1983 they did not increase at all. Senator Crichton-Browne's record is the same as his Government's-non-existent; words and no action. Senator Crichton-Browne raves on over there. I was moved by some parts of his contribution. I will not say exactly where I was moved but I was moved. I want to comment upon his criticism of the prices and incomes accord and the terrible things he says it is doing to small business in Australia. Of course, the prices and incomes accord has provided a framework, the first one in this country in over a decade, in which we can limit inflation, help employment opportunities grow and make sure that wages growth-the thing that Senator Crichton-Browne tells us is the evil in this world which small business cannot handle-is kept down to an acceptable level. Let us not forget that under the Liberal-National Government-when we had those wonderful economic managers from across the chamber; when they were mouthing slogans about abolishing any sort of centralised wage fixing-we saw in 1981-82 wages growth of 17 per cent, outstripping its rotten inflation rate of 11 per cent and only making things worse. All those small businessmen who may be listening to this debate and wondering how they are going to vote on 1 December-if there are any left who are wondering-ought to remember that that sort of wages growth will grow and grow under the policy of abolishing centralised wage fixation because big unions and big business will do their deals. Those deals will flow on and ruin small business. That is what this Government will not allow. Senator Crichton-Browne —What about the building unions' superannuation scheme? What about that? Senator RICHARDSON —If there are any tranquilisers available in the chamber Senator Crichton-Browne obviously is in great need. If we look at the Budget framework for 1984-85 we again see the future benefits which over the next 12 months small businesses no doubt will take into calculation when making investment decisions. To begin with, we see the tax cuts to start on 1 November which obviously will provide for greater average household spending power. We have higher welfare payments, much needed for the poor in the community, which again will provide more spending power. We have changes in business taxation rules, company group loss provisions and other announcements in the Budget. We have increased depreciation rates for non-residential income producing buildings . We have the tax cuts and the Medicare package. Therefore, there is plenty on which small business can rely for the next 12 months. Let us look further at just whom Australians believe and, more importantly, whom businessmen believe when it comes to economic matters. We heard from Senator Maguire about the poll in the Bulletin released this morning. I remind the honourable senators of those findings again. There was a 69 per cent approval rating for the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and a 20 per cent falling approval rate for the Opposition Leader, Andrew Peacock. I think there was a 55 per cent approval rating for the Hawke Government and a 37 per cent approval rating for the Liberal-National Opposition. Last week in the Age a poll went more specifically to the issues we are dealing with today. The Age asked the Australian people-I understand a couple of thousand people-'Whom do you prefer as economic managers, the Hawke Labor Government or the Liberal-National Party coalition?' The answer overall was that 54 per cent of those surveyed preferred the Hawke Labor Government compared to 25 per cent-a miserable 25 per cent-who preferred our Opposition. We have nothing to fear from the Australian people on 1 December. Even more indicative than those figures is what we see if we look at the heartland of the Liberal Party, where it has built its name. As I mentioned yesterday, during the seven years of Liberal government it was government by the rich, of the rich for the rich. However, if we look at what professionals and businessmen had to say in that same Age survey we find that 49 per cent preferred the Hawke Labor Government compared to 30 per cent for the Liberal- National Party. The Opposition has even lost its base because over those seven years the record was so bad that all Australians believe that anything would be an improvement. Fortunately this Government has not provided just anything, it has provided sound economic management. Its policies have worked and in 20 months we have turned the economy around. Let us look at some concessions already granted to small business in Australia which, although very costly for all Australians in the future, this Government realises are responsible and necessary to get the economy moving again. The five -year three-year depreciation provisions announced by the Liberals in 1982 and enacted by the Labor Government represent a cost in the 1983-84 Budget of some $ 20m. That cost rises to something like $100m in 1984-85, to $1,000m in 1987 and $2 billion in 1990. The Hawke Labor Government has proceeded with that policy because it knows that we have to give incentives to business and entrepreneurs to make sure our economy grows. At least we have done something. Responsible government devising policies to recognise accelerating costs is something we have been able to manage. I know that Senator Maguire referred to retail sales figures but I would like to analyse them further because some figures have been released today which I think are worth bringing to the attention of all Australians. In 1983-84 all the macro-economic indicators-the things that show us whether the economy is firing- were all going very strongly, except for one. Retail sales figures were weak. They were not recovering at the rate this Government would have liked. Fortunately I can now say that that one indicator, as against all the other indicators which were going well, has, of course, turned around. While retail sales figures had been sluggish they have again begun to rise, and to rise quickly, Indeed, in July there was a 3 per cent surge in retail sales figures over those for the month of June. Whereas there had been only a one per cent growth in the previous six months we saw a 3 per cent growth for the month of July. That was not just a one-off surge that quickly died and dissipated. We can see from the figures that came out today that we have held more than 2 per cent of that 3 per cent rise for August. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the September figures will show the same thing. What we will then have is a September quarter with retail sales figures growing faster than inflation. I think that will top off the recovery. That will show all Australians that they can now get out and spend because the economy has been turned around. Indeed, those figures are better than the forecasts in the Budget. Far from the Budget presenting some over optimistic forecast of what will happen in Australia in the next 12 months, the Treasurer, Paul Keating, was conservative in his views. What we are finding as each indicator is announced is that the figures are better and better and improve each and every day. Let us look at a few other indicators which show that small business is experiencing so many gains. In housing the total outlays for 1982-83 were $739 billion under the Liberals. In 1984-85 under the Labor Party the outlay was $1, 252 billion, an increase of 69 per cent. Assistance to first home buyers amounted to $150m in 1982-83 and was up to $280m in 1984-85, an increase of 86 per cent. The list goes on and on. Expenditure on public housing in 1982-83 was a miserable $406m under the Liberals and in 1984-85 was up to $623m, an increase of 53 per cent. Let us not forget that when we are spending money in the housing area, most, if not all, goes to small business. I turn to tourism, an area totally neglected, of course, under the seven years of the National-Liberal Government. Some $10m was spent in Mr Howard's last Budget but in 1983-84 $19.5m was allocated in the first Keating Budget. Some $22 .7m was allocated in the second Budget, an increase of 128 per cent. We will continue the momentum for growth in the tourist industry. The advertisements that our Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, John Brown, has commissioned and shown in America have already resulted in an increase of 100, 000 in visa applications in a four-month period. By the time those Americans get out here and spend money it will again be small business that will benefit. Those campaigns by no means have been the only ones but they are indicative I think of what this Government has been able to do. Today we have heard much about deregulation, another area about which the Fraser-Howard Government spoke for seven years but did nothing. It took Paul Keating as Treasurer, trying to guide our nation's economy, to deregulate our financial institutions. Of course, once he did that he had the praise of the financial community right across Australia and, indeed, the world. We have now recovered that miserable OECD position I mentioned earlier and have money flowing back into the country. If we look at the Liberal Government's record, all it did was to increase regulations. This Government has now set up a review of the Trade Practices Act to try to do something about deregulation. Even if just one of the review's recommendations such as the abolition of annual returns to corporate affairs offices was brought into being it would save each and every small businessman in Australia $700. This Government has done much for small business. The best thing we can do for small business is to provide an environment in which it can grow. Only the Hawke Government can provide it. The rabble that sits opposite failed when they had the chance and will fail again if ever given it. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.00) —It is with great pleasure that I enter this debate today because, as a person who has genuinely been a small business man, I do want to raise in Canberra some problems faced by small business people. The Government has put up three speakers, all union representatives. It has no members who can represent small business. We have Senator Cook over there who was a union representative and Senator Richardson was also a union representative. Senator Richardson —I never worked for a trade union; you are wrong again. Senator BOSWELL —I apologise; he worked for the political party. Even on the front bench we had the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) who was a teacher. There is no one who can represent the voice of small business . As indicated by an Opposition senator, the Government's policies have not worked. Only three or four policies out of 32 have actually been implemented and as recently as a couple of days ago, with only weeks to go to the elections, Senator Button introduced the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Amendment Bill as some sort of sop to the small business community. Small business is terribly concerned at the moment about increasing on-costs. We see one on-cost after another. The National Economic Summit Conference completely neglected small business. It had a very token representation from small business and small business has only one representative on the Economic Planning Advisory Council. It is a complete farce because small business provides jobs for 60 per cent of the people employed in Australia and yet it has only one representative for all those employees. Rural groups, too, have found that they have been absolutely neglected, having only one representative on EPAC . The Australian Council of Trade Unions does not assist small business; it works against it. The might of the ACTU, in tandem with the Labor Party Government, has helped to impose on small business severance and redundancy pay which, based on the ACTU's own figures, will cost $165m. Superannuation payments will put on- costs up by 5 per cent. Together with increased wage costs these are the things that concern small business. There is panic in the small business sector at the moment. People in the manufacturing industry are absolutely concerned. They cannot become any more efficient. They have the most up to date and efficient machinery in the world yet they cannot compete because one on-cost after another is imposed upon them. They have come to me and said that if this severance pay comes in, they will have to close down their businesses. I have been told that on numerous occasions. Senator Robert Ray —By whom? Senator BOSWELL —By numerous manufacturers. Senator Robert Ray —Name them. Senator BOSWELL —Before I name anyone in this House I want to clear it with them but I assure Senator Ray that I have been told on not one, not two but dozens of occasions that this redundancy pay claim-which this Government, which says it supports small business, went to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and backed-will have a great effect. This is the thing that most upsets small business. They do not see a way out. I employed 10 people and had a small business for 18 years but I never enjoyed sacking anyone. I never wanted to do it but the point is that there are times when one has to do it because of the economic situation or climatic conditions. Staff numbers may have to be reduced. One has to have the ability to manoeuvre and shed staff for one's own self-preservation, and Senator Richardson should be the first to understand that . The prices and incomes accord has been a miserable and total failure for small business. It is a contract between the ACTU and the Australian Labor Party to look after the employed and not the unemployed, or small business. During 1983, on-costs increased by 14 per cent under the Labor Government. Small business cannot afford such an increase. Mr Deputy President, this has been during the time of your Labor Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell, you should address your remarks through the Chair. It is not my Labor Government. Senator BOSWELL —I am sorry; I did not mean to say it was your Government. I know you would not want to be associated with the Labor Government. Many businesses are budgeting for the same rate of on-costs next year. The superannuation scheme will cost $11 a week per wage earner, and that will increase on-costs a further 5 per cent. How can anyone cop $11 a week and still stay in business? Yet, this is the sort of thing that Senator Richardson, Senator Ray and the Minister, Senator Ryan, do not understand. Why should they understand? They have never been involved in small business and they have never had to pay the weekly wage cheque or front the angry bank manager. They do not understand and never will understand small business. I recommend to Senator Richardson, who is the numbers man, that he allow me to advise him on finding someone in small business who the Labor Party could get into Parliament. I do not think he would find anyone silly enough to join his Party. The Labor Party needs someone who really understands the small business area of Australia. Small business employs more people than any other industry. It pays more tax. Yet the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-I want to bring this point firmly home to the small business people of Australia-said in Queensland that the people in small business were a mob of whingers. He said they could not live in a world of their own. All they wanted to do was go to the Treasurer and say: 'Look, we can't keep taking these increases'. What did he do? With total insensitivity, he got up and told them to stop whinging and complaining. That is a shocking way to treat a business sector that employs more people in Australia than any other sector. Small business can take up the unemployment slack, particularly the young unemployed. Small business led the recovery in the United States; it has put people in jobs. In the United States, small business has caused a drop in unemployment from 10.7 per cent to 7.5 per cent. It has put 6.3 million people in work, compared with big business which has shed 2.2 million jobs. The important thing to recognise is that the actual cost of wages and on-costs fell by 2.8 per cent. If we want small business to pick up the recovery and to improve unemployment figures by providing more jobs-it is the greatest job creator in this nation-- Senator Robert Ray —And we are doing it. Senator BOSWELL —The Government is not doing it. It is actually killing small business. The Government had a bit of a kick along when the drought broke and when the overseas recovery took place but Australia's economic situation will crash right down around its ears in another 12 months, if it has not started to crash now. Senator Crowley —Not before 1 December. Senator BOSWELL —That is a good point. The Government is racing to the polls with indecent haste because it is terrified that the whole thing will crash down around its ears. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales) —I present the first report of the Committee of Privileges, together with the transcript of evidence taken by the Committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(5.10) —by leave-I move: That the report be adopted. It is not the Committee's intention to have the motion resolved by the Senate before honourable senators have had an opportunity to consider the report's contents. The Committee trusts, however, that the Senate will make a decision on the issues discussed in the report before the Senate rises. The Committee has considered two of the three matters referred to it by the Senate on 14 June and 22 August 1984. Both matters concerned the publication, in the National Times, of purported reports of in camera proceedings of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. Owing to the extensive nature of the Committee's inquiry into these two related matters, the Committee has not as yet had the opportunity to consider the third matter referred to it by the Senate on 22 August 1984, on the motion of Senator Chipp. Briefly, the Committee has unanimously concluded as follows: Firstly, that the publication in the National Times in June, July and August of reports of in camera proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge constitutes a serious contempt of the Senate; secondly, that the reports were based on an unauthorised disclosure of the proceedings of the Committee-although the Committee undertook all investigations within its capacity to discover the source of the information it was unable to do so; and, thirdly, that if a person or persons disclosed the information wilfully and knowingly such disclosure constitutes a serious contempt of the Senate. In making these findings the Committee stresses that the disclosure and publication of the in camera proceedings of the Select Committee could seriously have damaged the operations of the Select Committee and persons mentioned in the articles. As the report indicates, the Committee is also concerned about the damage that could be done to the work, not only of the Select Committee but also of other Senate committees. Most importantly, however, the Committee had regard for potential damage to witnesses before any committee of the Parliament and regards as fundamental the obligation of either House of the Parliament to protect witnesses coming before it. Before the Committee reports to the Senate on the question of what penalty, if any, it proposes to recommend to the Senate, it intends to make available to the persons affected by its findings a copy of this report and will seek from such persons any further submissions they may wish to make. The Committee has also given persons who were mentioned unfavourably by the editor of the National Times, Mr Brian Toohey, in evidence given to the committee, an opportunity to respond to matters raised in the course of his evidence. The Committee will further consider responses already received and any other responses which may be forthcoming over the next few weeks, and will make a further report to the Senate on these matters also. It also proposes to make a more detailed response to matters raised in written submissions on behalf of John Fairfax and Sons, Mr Toohey and Ms Wendy Bacon in the next report. The Committee considered it was necessary, however, to inform the Senate as soon as possible of its clear views concerning the nature of the contempts. It is for this reason that I commend both the report and the motion to the Senate. Senator PETER RAE(New South Wales)(5.12) —I support the motion and seek leave to continue my remarks later. I feel that this matter should be debated after honourable senators have had an opportunity to read the report. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the twelfth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 14 dated 17 October 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, I table a statement about the funding of superannuation by statutory authorities of the Commonwealth. I seek leave to move a motion on this statement. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I wish to provide the Senate with an explanation for Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations not yet having reported further on its reference 'Funding of Superannuation by Statutory Authorities'. We have been waiting since last year for the reports by the Australian Government Actuary on 15 larger authorities. These were initially expected early in 1984 but, even now , only 10 have been received by the Committee. We will therefore not be able to pursue this reference further until next year. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a fuller discussion of this matter. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Background to Issues In December 1983 the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations tabled in Parliament an Interim Report on 'Funding of Superannuation by Statutory Authorities'. In this report the Committee identified a number of issues relating to the funding of employer contributions to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) by Commonwealth Statutory Authorities, which required further discussion. These issues included: (1) for Authorities contributing on an 'emerging cost' basis: (i) the lack of legal requirements for an Authority to make proper annual employer contributions and to manage its own reserve fund to meet its liability without creating a liability on the Commonwealth; (ii) whether these Authorities should be encouraged, even directed, to change to the 'pay-as-you-go' system. (2) for Authorities contributing under the 'pay-as-you-go' system: (i) some may not be making an adequate annual contribution to the notional fund to meet future liabilities; this focuses attention on the problems of: the frequency of the Commonwealth Actuarial reviews of each authority, and the absence of any legislative requirement to ensure regular actuarial reviews; (ii) some Authorities may prefer to manage their own contributions in the belief that they could achieve a better result; (iii) those Authorities whose rate of contribution is insufficient to meet future pension increases need to introduce appropriate measures to offset future difficulties; (iv) some study on the validity of continuing the practice of differential rates of contribution to the notional fund by various Authorities is needed; (v) there is a need to quantify the accruing Commonwealth liability for the CSS ; (vi) the Authorities' and Commonwealth's future liabilities may provide considerable difficulties at some later period, given the age structure of population, the tendency to earlier retirement and the narrowing of the tax base . Objectives raised in the Interim Report: In relation to these issues the Committee raised a number of objectives for future examination. These objectives were: (i) the desirability of approved Authorities continuing in their present arrangements for funding their superannuation liabilities; (ii) the appropriate rate of contribution by employers, should the 'pay-as-you- go' method be retained, and whether all Authorities should contribute an average or standard employer contribution or, alternatively, contribute on the basis of an actuarial review; (iii) the performance and timeliness of actuarial reviews of Statutory Authorities including the role of the Department of Finance and the necessity for legislative amendment; (iv) the Commonwealth's liability for Statutory Authorities' superannuation; and (v) the applicability of private superannuation schemes to Statutory Authorities generally and to particular Authorities. Actuarial Reports: In December 1983, the Committee reported that it hoped to table a final report in Parliament as soon as possible. The necessary analysis of data by the Committee was dependent on its receiving the Australian Government Actuary's reports on 15 larger Statutory Authorities (each with employment levels in excess of 300). As stated in the December 1983 Interim Report, there was considerable delay in the commencement of these reviews as the Department of Finance and the Actuary experienced difficulties in agreeing on the framework for the reviews. This dispute has been resolved now but it did cause considerable delay in the completion of the reviews. To date the Actuary has completed 10 of the proposed 15 reviews. On 2 August 1984 the Committee received from the Minister for Finance the Actuary's reviews on the following Authorities: Australian Atomic Energy Commission; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. On 15 August 1984, the Committee received eight more reviews covering the following Authorities: Australian National Railways Commission Australian Postal Commission Australian Shipping Commission Australian Telecommunications Commission Canberra College of Advanced Education Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission National Capital Development Commission Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation The Committee has yet to receive the Actuary's reviews on the following Authorities: Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority Australian Broadcasting Corporation Capital Territory Health Commission Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Overseas Telecommunications Commission The Committee regards it as unfortunate that it has been necessary for the Actuary to comment on the completeness of data provided by the Department of Finance. In its Interim Report the Committee raised the issue of the timeliness of the provision of this information. The Auditor-General, in his September 1984 report on the administration by the Department of Finance of employer contributions by approved Authorities under the CSS, also commented adversely on the delays in the provision of data. He stated that: ''The audit indicated that completion of the . . . actuarial reviews had been dependent on the Department taking, and communicating to the Actuary, a number of decisions involving factors bearing directly upon the calculation of employer liabilities. The audit also revealed that, notwithstanding a number of urgent requests from the Actuary to the Department for policy advice and related decisions between 1977 and 1983, and despite similar representations from certain authorities during the same period, firm guidelines for the calculation of employer contribution rates were not provided to the Actuary by the Department until late in 1983. It is a matter for consideration whether the protracted delay by the Department in providing the Actuary with firm guidelines has prevented the pay-as-you-go group of authorities . . . from progressively recognising their full superannuation liabilities and making adequate provision for any deficiency. The trading authorities among them will have been quite adversely affected if the actuarial assessments should disclose that the interim rates have been insufficient to cover their accumulating liabilities. This Office requested advice from the Department as to the reasons for the delay in providing the Actuary with the information he required.'' Due to the fact that one third of the anticipated reviews are not available, the Committee has not been able to pursue those issues and objectives which it has raised in its Interim Report and proposed for further examination. Future Directions: As soon as practicable in 1985, the Committee intends to pursue these matters by: firstly, seeking the views of the 15 Statutory Authorities reviewed on the matters raised by the Actuary and detailed as points for concern; and secondly, seeking the Actuary's views on a range of issues once all of the reports have been completed and received by the Committee. The Committee wishes to note the general concern on the question of public sector superannuation and particularly the problem of emerging unfunded liability. Indeed, Committees of both the Victorian and New South Wales parliaments have recently published detailed examinations of their public sector superannuation schemes which have addressed this problem. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Peter Rae: That the Senate take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.17) —I am pleased to speak briefly to this report 'Australia and ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities'. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute to its content. The report is not sensational, and that is probably why to date it has received little publicity. It is a businesslike report and attempts to draw together knowledge on the development of the Association of South East Asian Nations in the last 16 years, to assess the state reached by the grouping and where it appears to be heading, and to interrelate Australia's interests and aspirations with that development. Thus, we were looking at the challenges and opportunities for Australia evident in the development of ASEAN. No matter whether we look from the point of view of Australia's foreign affairs and defence considerations or our economic and trade interests, ASEAN as a group of six mainly rapidly developing countries immediately to our north must be important. In the light of that importance, what was so striking to the Committee was the lack of awareness and understanding of ASEAN in Australia. Just as important, but not so readily recognised, was the lack of awareness and understanding of Australia in ASEAN. Furthermore, ASEAN does not see us as being of the importance to the region that we sometimes tend to presume we are. From a trade point of view the figures indicate that the ASEAN countries are more important to us than we are to them. In that light, it appeared to the Committee that it would be worth while to work at the reality and not the myth of our relationship . I wish briefly to deal first with the matter of correcting false impressions and lack of understanding. The key to a better understanding which the Committee believes to be vitally important to Australia lies in education. Education in Asian studies, particularly at school level, we found to be inadequate. We agreed with the submission of the Asian Studies Association of Australia: A central task of the Australian Government if it wishes to promote long-term, mature Australian-ASEAN relations must be an educational program in Australia about ASEAN countries. The extent of teaching of ASEAN languages was particularly important; the Committee noted such teaching was neglected. The Committee noted also the rhetoric of the education authorities, but was of the view that it is now time for action, not just words. The fact that some tertiary colleges are beginning to increase the emphasis on business oriented Asian studies courses was noted with approval, as were the efforts of the ASEAN-Australia Business Council to promote awareness of the ASEAN region. Apart from educational failings, the Committee was disappointed with the coverage of ASEAN affairs in the Australian media. Specialist reporters are few in number and only the sensational story appears to get published. If we cannot get coverage from the commercial media, the Committee's view is that it would like to see more serious reporting from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on ASEAN affairs. With respect to ASEAN understanding of Australia, the extent of knowledge of Australian attitudes and aspirations is lamentable. That was made clear to the Committee by evidence received from a group of ASEAN journalists who were in Australia on an Australian Development Assistance Bureau sponsored seminar. As I understand it, that was the first of such seminars. The Committee's view is that such exchanges should continue and that there should be encouragement of ASEAN print media representatives to be resident in Australia. The Committee is of the view that we must also look to Radio Australia in relation to this matter. There is no doubt that Radio Australia performs a lot of worth-while work. However, in view of the appalling ignorance of Australia in ASEAN countries, the Committee raises the question of how successfully Radio Australia is promoting awareness of Australia in the ASEAN region. A great deal of what understanding of Australia there is in ASEAN countries, although limited largely to Malaysia and Singapore, has come from returning students educated in Australia. The Committee is therefore disappointed to see opportunities limited by quotas. The Committee's view is that if fees are to increase it is important that a comprehensive system of scholarships be funded. The Committee does not want to see ASEAN students excluded because they are financially disadvantaged. However, the Committee is aware that for the other full fee paying students to come to Australia, which is desirable, the quality and relevance of Australian courses should be improved. This should be considered by Australian educational authorities, which should consult ASEAN needs and reactions. We tend to provide according to what we perceive are ASEAN needs rather than what ASEAN countries regard as their needs. There has also been a tendency for the same attitudes to prevail in our approach to foreign relations with ASEAN. The error of the current Government's initiatives in Indo-China was not that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was not genuine and it was not that the Government should not use Australia's good offices to explore ways of facilitating a settlement, but that the Government failed consistently to propound and explain to ASEAN what it was doing. It failed to consult adequately. It believed that because Indonesia was itself engaging in some bilateral exploration and negotiation with Vietnam, Indonesia would support Australia doing likewise. It learnt a lesson about ASEAN solidarity when Indonesia fell into the ASEAN line, leaving Australia swinging and desperately and too late attempting to explain its policy. We must, therefore, not presume to know what is in ASEAN's best interests. Paragraph 289 of the report in part reads: The evidence does suggest, however, that if Australia wishes to take a consistent interest in the security of the Southeast Asian region overall, it will need to emphasise very clearly that in seeking to explore ways of enhancing prospects for regional security the cautious development of policies towards Indochina will not be pursued at the expense of long-term relations with ASEAN. Where Australia has acted in consultation, such as in our contribution to the refugee problem in Indo-China, our contribution has been recognised and appreciated. The lessons of the need for careful consultation will be tested in two issues of current concern. The first is the five-power defence arrangements and Australia's Royal Australian Air Force involvement. As the Senate knows, there is some pressure from internal sources to withdraw. If our contribution is desired and if we are contributing to stability, as one senator I would be reluctant to advocate such withdrawal. But, in the context of this report, the advice that we give is again for adequate consultation and caution. Paragraph 2. 102 of the report states: . . . any rapid contraction of Australia's involvement in FPDA might lead to concerns in some ASEAN countries about Australia's commitment to regional security at a time when it would appear to be in our interests to underline our continuing strong commitment to the security of ASEAN. The second area of current interest is our relations with the ASEAN partner, Indonesia, and bilateral strains which have arisen over East Timor and, more latterly, Irian Jayan issues. ASEAN has supported Indonesia's position on East Timor and its solidarity may again show in relation to Irian Jaya. That does not mean that we should not speak out when we see abuses of human rights; we should. However, it does mean that the level of influence we can bring to bear for changes of policy will depend on the state of our relations with the whole of ASEAN. Our effectiveness will be a major diplomatic challenge requiring extensive and careful consultation. The other area I will briefly mention is that of economic issues because, as we say in the report, 'the interaction between political and economic policies can be important in the ASEAN relationship'. The prospects for Australia-ASEAN two- way trade are good. However, trade imbalances and Australian market access are issues likely to be raised again by ASEAN countries as a group. As the group has enjoyed relative success and increasing influence when negotiating international trade issues of common interest, we should take particular note of that. Therefore, although we look in depth at the increased opportunities for Australia in the provision of commodities and food products, minerals and metals for industrial processing, machinery, technology for investment, and consultancy and financial services, if we are not to run into political barriers, we will have to be conscious that mutual benefits will result from freer two-way trade flows and that will call for sensible government initiatives. A greater understanding of ASEAN is important to Australia's future relations with ASEAN, particularly in relation to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead of us. I trust the Senate will find the report informative. I look forward to the Government's response. I take this opportunity to thank the staff of the Committee for their competence and diligence. I also register my appreciation of the contribution of my colleagues on the Committee. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.28) —I look with interest at the report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, entitled 'Australia and ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities'. The Committee was chaired by Senator Sibraa and Senator Hill, whom we have just heard speak briefly to the report, was the Deputy Chairman. Unfortunately, time has not permitted in these rather busy last days of the Senate a perusal of this report, which appears to be very complete. It covers many aspects of our relations with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and touches on Indo-China. Coming from the Northern Territory, I believe, perhaps speaking for the people of the north, that we have to grow closer to the ASEAN countries than we have in the past. In the past, unfortunately, Australia really looked to its relations with Europe and those countries whence our original stock came more than to ASEAN countries. For very many years Australians thought they were a part of the European world. Of course, that part of the world is far distant. Our experience in the last couple of decades has shown more and more that we have to be more realistic and realise that our future is with the ASEAN group. Whether we are looking at defence or trade, it is quite apparent that we must be much more aware of our relationship with ASEAN countries. If one takes a radius from Darwin of, say, 200, 300, 400 or 500 miles, one sees that it is closer to very many South East Asian cities than it is to other Australian cities. We now have a very significant contact with the people to the north, which, I believe, is developing reasonably well. With this in mind, and from what I have seen from this report, I believe we must make a much closer study of it and take many more of its recommendations to heart. Recently-in June and July-I had the opportunity of travelling with the official delegation from the House of Representatives and the Senate, led by Senator Robertson, the Government Whip, through some Asian countries but mainly through Indo-China. A very big impression was made on me when I travelled through these countries and saw the poverty and the problems that this part of the region has suffered and still suffers. It has been war-torn for very many decades, and immense problems exist now. One can see no answer to the vast problems that beset this part of South East Asia, which we must recognise because we live so close to these countries. I speak of the countries that are so war-torn. There is continual fighting and there is the influence of the major powers. In Vietnam we see considerable Soviet influence. We see the battle of the Vietnamese to uplift their standard of living and to increase their food production in an effort to feed their population adequately. I believe that at the same time they are looking, if possible, to have closer links with other countries such as Australia. Laos is an extremely poor country. Australia has links with the Laotian people also. Their population has decreased very greatly. There is a vast refugee problem there and very many people are fleeing the country. Kampuchea is a most pitiful country. It is only four or five years since it came out of the period of Pol Pot. I doubt that many Australians realise the misery suffered by and the extent of the massacre of the people of Kampuchea. At a very conservative estimate, almost 50 per cent of its population-some 2 million people-would have been killed in that period of approximately four years when Pol Pot was on the rampage. Because of the vast massacre of the Kampuchean people, I think hardly a family in that country would not have suffered. At one place I was able to see the pits, which have just been opened up, where the victims of Pol Pot were buried after removal from the elimination camps. At one place I saw a heap of some 6,000 to 7,000 skulls. Several of the skulls were very badly damaged and it was impossible to walk through that area without walking on fragments of clothing, teeth and bone. There is the problem on the Thai border of refugee camps. I spent some time in the interim refugee camps where there is extreme poverty and where the inmates live under extremely poor conditions. Thousands of refugees are crowded into these camps. One could go on speaking of these matters but, in the very brief time available to me, not really having had the time to absorb this report, I shall just indicate some of my feelings on them. Having had this brief period in Indo-China and having seen thousands of refugees on the move through those countries, looking for peace and for some future for themselves and their children, I believe that we must realise that Australia has certain responsibilities as it is part of the South East Asian region. Whether we like it or not, tens of thousands of refugees are still on the move. They will be seeking another homeland. The movement of refugees out of Indo-China is not finished. It will continue because of the strife there, and such countries as Australia will continue to be called upon time and again to give some assistance and to provide a haven for some of these people. I believe that we have the responsibility to accept and assist these people. Time does not permit me to go into the situation that Senator Hill has just described. He was talking about students from the Asian countries and Indo-China coming to Australia. If we want to have a real future with the Asian countries and Indo-China we must accept those students into our universities and colleges. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 3 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Tate: That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 12 September, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.40) —I invite honourable senators to count my words. My Liberal Party colleagues, former Ministers Kevin Newman and Neil Brown, commenced the process which led to this legislation. The Opposition is glad to see the legislation now before the Parliament. We support the legislation. We wish the Australian Federal Police every success as it continues to grow and develop as an effective force. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.41) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for those few words. I will use even fewer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. (Quorum formed) Bill 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 BAUME(New South Wales)(5.44) —In this cognate debate I will confine my comments to the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1984, a Bill which the Opposition does not oppose, but on which I will make a few comments. The Bill increases the charge which is to be levied on private overseas students in a way which seems reasonable and proper. It does, however, provide the opportunity to examine the place and financing of private overseas students. Honourable senators will note that Senator Kilgariff only a few moments ago drew attention to the need for Australia to have a policy which accepts private overseas students with generosity and with propriety. Therefore, consideration of this Bill is quite timely. It is particularly timely because the Government has before it at the moment an unresolved problem in relation to its handling of private overseas students. This Bill provides an opportunity for honourable senators to make contributions to the debate in a genuine search for a bipartisan policy on how Australia should approach, deal with and consider the question of accommodating the needs of private overseas students and resident Australians. The Opposition, as an aid to good debate and in the hope that we can assist the Government in its consideration of this matter, which was a subject of public discussion, announced a policy position on 3 September. We did this to ensure that the Government had before it in its discussions the fullest possible range of policy options. We thought the Government should know where the Opposition stood because it may assist in the decisions which it must reach in what is really a very difficult matter. The Opposition-the Liberal and National parties- has considered the problems which have faced the Australian community in relation to the accommodation of private overseas students, problems which relate to displacement of resident Australians from places on campus. The Opposition has opted for a policy which will allow continuing access to education institutions by overseas students and at the same time a policy which will maintain a maximum number of places for resident Australians. If the Government could achieve those two goals-if we could achieve them together-that would be the approach that would be in the best interests of the country and in the best interests of the kinds of international obligations to which honourable senators referred in the preceding debate. I suppose that the Opposition, in having to decide on either the approach recommended by the committee headed by Sir Gordon Jackson or the committee headed by Professor Goldring, has effectively backed the findings of the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program in its approach to the question of private overseas students. But let me say that it is an on-balance decision between two important reports-the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Students Policy and the Jackson Committee report; both have tried to address the problems in a constructive way; both have taken an approach which is sensitive and caring; both have acknowledged the net value and gain to this country of overseas students; and both have recognised that problems of displacement of resident Australians are real. But the committees varied in the way in which they sought to overcome and resolve those problems. It is a fact that the sensitivity in this country about overseas students has become more apparent in the last few years. We have had the rather unfortunate example of racist slogans being daubed on the walls of some campuses, particularly those campuses where overseas students have been able to win places in large numbers. I instance the University of New South Wales, a very fine campus in Sydney, where in at least a couple of faculties overseas students-on merit-have occupied many, if not most, of the places in certain courses. This has given rise to most unfortunate responses. But it has also given rise to concern from parents who find that their children cannot gain places. The problem of displacement of resident Australians creates our domestic political difficulty. If that did not happen, we would have no difficulty in taking as many private overseas students as want to come to this country. The reason that there is displacement of resident Australians is that we have defined a fixed total number of places in universities and colleges which is very difficult to expand. Because of that fixed number of places, every extra student from overseas means one less resident Australian can be included in that fixed number of positions on campus. There are two ways in which overseas students have entered Australian universities. First, students have come under government to government arrangements. A small number of students-about 2,000 a year at the moment-are involved. Most of the students at the present time are graduate students. Very few fully funded undergraduates are coming under government to government arrangements. Another group of students, known as private overseas students, come to Australia and pay for some part of their tuition. This group, which at present numbers about 10,000, is made up of mostly undergraduate students. So there is an interesting problem in that the policies of Australian governments as they relate to arrangements we make bilaterally have resulted in largely graduate students becoming eligible for educational opportunities. That is something else that we need to examine in the light of both the Goldring and Jackson committee reports. The Goldring Committee in its report 'Mutual Advantage', besides drawing our attention to the advantages which accrue to this country because students come here to study, also proposed what it saw as the solutions. Some of them, I think , are not solutions. As I say, the Opposition is putting forward its view in a genuine attempt to encourage the best bipartisan debate. The Goldring Committee said that about five per cent of places at present are taken up by private overseas students. It recommended that the number should be increased over time to a maximum of 10 per cent. But that would mean a doubling of the places. Unless we resolve the displacement of resident Australian students, all that will mean in the longer term is that the rather unfortunate responses we are seeing on some campuses at the present time might become more marked and difficult. The Goldring Committee recommended ways in which it thought the problem could be overcome. It thought that students should be dispersed more widely. It suggested that there should be limits on the numbers of overseas students who should be allowed to enter any one campus and that a maximum number of students should be allowed to enter any one course on any one campus. That may be a sensible suggestion. However, all it does is to disperse the number of students; it does nothing really to end the displacement problem of resident Australians. We would like a solution that fixes up all the problems and that maximises advantages and minimises problems. The Goldring Committee also recommended that certain moneys raised from the private overseas student charge-the one that is the subject of the Bill before us-should be reapplied in the education system. At the moment the money goes into Consolidated Revenue. A few extra places possibly could be created if institutions were allowed to use the money in that way. The Goldring report is not a bad report. However, we do not think it is the better of the two. The Jackson Committee has taken, we think, a more adventurous course. We think it has come up with a more definitive solution to this problem. The Jackson Committee in its report on overseas aid addressed the problem of how we should handle overseas students. It, too, acknowledged the advantages which accrue to Australia. It acknowledged the advantages which students bring. It acknowledged the need to keep overseas students entering this country. But the Jackson Committee concentrated more upon what it saw as ways to resolve the problem. First, it said that a large hidden subsidy of about $70m a year at the present time goes into the education of private overseas students. This amount is very easy to calculate. The students pay only about 30 per cent of the cost of their education and, therefore, to the extent of about 70 per cent of the cost, they are subsidised. The Jackson Committee suggested that this subsidy should be pulled out and reapplied in ways which one might determine by policy to enable the very best use to be made of bilateral government to government arrangements to help sponsored students. The Opposition is attracted to that suggestion. We believe that if the $70m subsidy were pulled out, made explicit and applied back to education to provide extra places on a government to government basis we would be able to take many more than the 2,000 sponsored students that we are taking at present. If there were a mixture of fully funded places and partially funded places based on any kind of needs formula we might be able to take many thousands of students on a government to government sponsored basis. If that money were applied- Senator Kilgariff —Build more colleges. Senator PETER BAUME —I will come to that in a moment. But if that money were applied back to the education system, the displacement of resident Australians would end. The Jackson Committee approach is attractive in that respect. The Jackson Committee also suggested-and this is contentious-that students over and above the extra thousands who come under government to government arrangements should be allowed to come to this country if they pay their way. I find nothing wrong with that. We have a tertiary education system in Australia which is of high quality. We have educational institutions desperate and anxious to increase the number of people they are teaching. There are students in South East Asia and in our region who are desperate to be taught. At present, those students have to go to North America or England if they cannot get places here. They have to pay their way in those countries. The Opposition believes that the Jackson approach, modified perhaps to take into account some of the problems, would end the displacement of resident Australians from our campuses. It would allow as many or more overseas students to come to this country as come already. It would allow universities and colleges to give these people the benefit of their excellent teaching. It would enable some expansion within the education sector because the full cost that would be paid by these students would probably include $100 to $125 as capital over and above the tuition cost. Senator Kilgariff —And a tremendous amount of goodwill. Senator PETER BAUME —And a tremendous amount of goodwill, as my colleague says. I have used the opportunity provided by this legislation to make a few comments and to indicate the disposition of the Federal Opposition to adopt and accept the approach of Sir Gordon Jackson and his committee. We do so with no sense of disregard for what Professor Goldring and his group did. But because we saw nothing in Professor Goldring's approach that could resolve effectively the problem of the displacement of resident Australian students we have elected to support the other approach. We offer these thoughts today in the hope that we may be part of a constructive national debate aimed at expanding the whole tertiary system, maximising the number of overseas students who can take part in education in this country, maximising opportunities for our educational institutions, and making overseas students welcome in this country and able to benefit. Of course, Australians will also benefit. Having said that, I join with the Government and indicate that the Opposition will support the legislation before the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.58) — We are debating the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1984 and the International Development Association ( Further Payment) Bill 1984. I wish to address my remarks only to the first Bill, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill. I think that the private overseas student program is in disarray. As Senator Peter Baume, who has just spoken in the debate, mentioned, a number of reports have been made on this matter which, in many material ways, are in conflict. We are dealing with legislation which in an ad hoc fashion increases charges but which really does not address the central issue or the concerns which currently are being expressed within the community. There is no doubt that some parts of our program support the policies of other countries which we in Australia would find abhorrent. Our program is not flexible enough to take into account the type of- Senator Peter Baume —Racism in Malaysia. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. We have a number of problems in this area. In previous debates I have gone through a number of them. In today's debate, because of the shortage of time, I wish to look at only two matters, the first of which is the need to make sure that in subsequent years we make it very clear that the budgeting in this area is going to the overseas student program essentially as part of our foreign aid program. I believe it needs to be designated quite clearly as that, because at the moment there is in the community a great deal of unrest. Quite a number of parents are expressing the view-although it is an erroneous view, they still feel very strongly about it-that their daughter or son is being deprived of the benefit of an education in a tertiary institution because places are being taken by overseas students. However, if we rearranged the budgeting, and did nothing else, we could show that those overseas student places were being provided as part of our obligations to other countries, in Oceania and South East Asia in particular. We need to fulfil those obligations, and I believe we should be proud that this country has fulfilled them in the past and should hope that it will increase its role in the future. Many developing countries in the Pacific area require professionals in a whole range of disciplines. The best contribution that Australia can make to aiding those countries is not to go there and direct them what they ought to do with their resources, how they ought to run their businesses or how they should conduct themselves in relation to agriculture, but to provide free of charge to the citizens of those countries the expertise that they believe they need. Then the citizens of those countries can go back and help in the development of the Pacific region. By doing that we will build up for ourselves, if one wants to look at it selfishly, a great deal of goodwill, because undoubtedly those people in due course will become leaders in their countries. We will then have an enormous amount of goodwill in the relationships between Australia and the many republics in the Pacific and in South East Asia which will undoubtedly mean a growth in trade between the various countries. Unfortunately we often do not spell out some of the selfish benefits to Australia of foreign aid. Quite apart from the altruistic support that it gives, Australia benefits itself in the long run from the money it provides to other countries. We get an ability to establish trade links that we could not get in any other way. I believe that our overseas students program is a vital part of what we do in education. It is vital to any reasonable foreign affairs policy of any government. That is why the Australian Democrats are worried by the reports of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. As I understand it, we are still having difficulties. One rumour that came to me was that three departments had spent about seven weeks arguing about who was going to be on an interdepartmental committee to systematise the difference between those two reports. Senator Peter Baume —At least Jackson does what you want-makes it specific to foreign aid. Senator MACKLIN —But the point I am making is that we have two reports, yet we do not have a definitive view from the Government spelling out where we should be going. I wish to raise only briefly another area in relation to overseas students, that is, the British example. At the moment Britain is making considerable headway in providing courses for students from many other countries , in particular intensive English language courses. Those courses are attracting people from a wide range of countries and, in doing so, are attracting dollars. In other words, the British are looking at their educational institutions as an export. I believe we in Australia have really failed, because the vast bulk of the billion dollar English language industry operating in the United Kingdom is produced for Asian students. Yet I would have thought that Australia was better positioned than Britain to provide that educational service-at a fee. Students are paying for that service in Britain. It is a totally different service from the one I was talking about previously which, if we do it in the right way as part of our foreign aid, can be seen by everybody to be such. But I am talking now about an education export industry, which we could base on our tertiary institutions, not only in English language but also in other areas- Senator Peter Baume —Additional to the foreign aid. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, in addition to the foreign aid and paid for by the people who come here. They would pay for it; it would be a service. Senator Hill —If you are going on to the open market you have to offer a good service. Senator MACKLIN —Australia can offer the best service in the world in English language courses. We have the expertise. We have the people. All we need is the support to be able to produce that industry and to make it tick. It will tick partly by piggy-backing on the expertise and partly by selling the product overseas. It is time we in Australia started actually listening to some of the ideas which are being and have been produced, including the ideas that Barry Jones, the Minister for Science and Technology in the Labor Government, has been producing about the need for us to look ahead and at other types of industries. Here is one we have ploughed an enormous amount of capital into and which could be useful as an export industry. The spin-off from it would be two-fold. The first advantage would be the provision of updated institutions for our own citizens in which they could take pride. For example, it is very expensive to provide a top-class language laboratory in a wide range of our tertiary institutions, but if such an operation could be supported by using education as an export our own students would be able to partake of the facilities. In addition, we would have an even wider range of contacts with other countries . For example, if people were to come to Australia to learn English they would do so for a reason, and the reason would be trade and business. The more of those people we can get here to show them the value of our community, the friendliness of our people, the abilities we have in this country and our willingness to work with other countries towards the development of a peaceful world, the greater will be our benefit in trade. We can gain advantage in a whole number of ways. We can get it in pure dollars from the industry itself and we can get it again later from the establishment of the very real personal and interpersonal links which mean so much in the trading world. We have here an opportunity which we should have grasped long ago. It is an opportunity which we can have only by not listening to the knockers in our society, to those types of people who are afraid of talking to people in other countries, who want to be insular and not go out and who do not want to open up this country and show the rest of the world what we have while they show us what they have. We have an enormous amount to learn, but we also have an enormous amount to teach and to give. In doing that we can benefit not only ourselves but also the rest of the world. I believe that the Government has an obligation to move rapidly to clarify its view and to show a very strong, positive move in this regard. We have a great opportunity; let us grasp it. Let us not leave it for another six months, another nine months, another year, another departmental committee, and for probably yet another inquiry. There is very little that we do not know about this area. What we do not know is what decisions the Government wants to make. We do not need any more evidence, we need decisions. This Government has to make those decisions. It has to give leadership. It has to show that we have a great thing going in this area. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.11) —The Senate is debating cognately two Bills, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1984 and the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1984. I intend to deal with each of those Bills. Firstly, the International Development Association is an affiliate of the World Bank and provides interest free loans to its poorest developing member countries. The resources of the Bank are replenished every three years. This Bill is designed to authorise Australia's contribution to the seventh replenishment, which will cover IDA's lending operations over the next three years. It is indeed appropriate that we provide this money as retribution and in recognition that many of the developing countries problems are often a consequence of the policies pursued by some countries of the industrial world for their own benefit. One good example taken from the European Economic Community is the common agricultural policy, which has dramatically changed the pattern of a great deal of world trade. The rapid expansion of subsidised exports to dispose of surpluses has created unrestrained production and, therefore, increased dumping of commodities on struggling developing world economies. The depression of prices received by Third World countries, almost entirely dependent on agricultural exports for income, has further increased their indebtedness. Moreover, this indiscriminate dumping of processed commodities on developing nations has in the past meant that many local industries have disappeared and indigenous people have lost their initiative, traditional employment and skills. We of the industrialised world should be supporting a program which assists the poorer nations to become more self-reliant. The technology introduced to aid self-sufficiency should be appropriate to the needs and aspirations of the people in terms of modernisation. We must take account of the growing interdependence between the developed and the developing countries, particularly in relation to growth, debt and trade, and the risks and benefits that all these things entail. Importantly, as a longer term aim we should look to the effective and equitable integration of developing countries into a flexible and responsible international economic system which, in turn, will be strengthened by such a development. Exploitation by the industrialised world, which has caused such serious social and economic dislocation in developing countries, must be and can be halted. If nothing is done, the Third World debt will be our responsibility as its creator and perpetuator. The other matter I wish to raise in this cognate debate relates to the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill. Here I wish to put a slightly different perspective. The Government has put forward two principal reasons for an increase in the upper ceiling charges for overseas students: Firstly, to supplement the higher costs education for overseas students has imposed upon the Government, and that is fair enough; secondly, to appease the Australian taxpayers who are supposedly aggrieved at the inadequate contribution overseas students make towards their higher education. If we look at the figures we find that the overseas students charge raised $25.5m in 1983-84. Due to both an increase in the charge rate, netting $3.8m, and an increase in the students who must pay for the charge, 1984-85 is expected to yield $32.2m. Students will now be charged between $2,500 and $3,350 per year. In 1985, overseas students will contribute an estimated one-third of the current cost of their education. The new charges are a 15 per cent increase on last year's figures. Moreover, these increased charges will exceed the anticipated inflation rate twofold. It is an indictment on the Government to have imposed these unjustifiably severe increases. When one considers this increase in conjunction with a recent statement by the Minister for Immigration, Mr Stewart West, where he warns overseas students in Australian schools and tertiary institutions that they may be expelled from the country if they fail to pay the higher fees, one is not surprised at the reaction from some of the student associations. The Government is intending to overhaul its overseas student policy, and this is evidenced by the establishment of inquiries into this field. However, the Government has pre-empted the consideration of the report of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Students Policy and is obviously unaware of the financial situation of the majority of these students. This is where I differ. The New South Wales University performed some research on overseas students in 1983. Contrary to what the Government appears to believe, the results demonstrate that an overwhelming proportion of these students are from disadvantaged circumstances and already face financial difficulties which will be exacerbated by the imposition of higher charges. Another important point that deserves identification is the fact that the increased charges also affect the students' families who are living overseas, often in conditions that many Australian families would find quite intolerable. The Federation of Australian University Staff Associations has voiced opposition to the charges on the basis that they are discriminatory. Obviously students can better empathise with their overseas counterparts than distant, financially well endowed members of the Government or members of parliament. Evidently the Government's assumption that overseas students were not contributing enough towards their education is wrong. It is likely that for many the financial demands will be accentuated beyond the student's ability to pay. That is the tragedy. These financial demands will have repercussions not only on the living standards of students in Australia, but also on the families living overseas. On the other hand, we find that Australian students whose fees are minimal enjoy a privileged position in comparison, given that their standard of living is considerably higher than that of their counterparts to whom I have been referring. The proposition that overseas students are a component of foreign aid policies is dubious, given that the increase in fees is creating, not eliminating or reducing, hardship. I believe that a logical and positive means for removing the objections of Australian taxpayers who feel that Australian students are threatened or displaced by overseas students in the tertiary sphere would be to transfer the funding of the overseas students into the foreign aid budget. That matter has been raised by a previous speaker. Therefore, the education budget under such a policy would be an Australian educational budget and more resources could be legitimately channelled into foreign aid to help resolve the overseas students' financial distress. Australia boasts of the multicultural composition of our society. The Government is always quick to capitalise on any development in the multicultural milieu. If there is a genuine commitment to a multicultural society it should be promoted in the universities and the colleges of advanced education. Cultural exchange in higher education is both rewarding and stimulating. Higher education is future oriented. Students are trained to be receptive to new ideas and new concepts. Exchange of ideas in a learning environment fosters mutual respect and greater understanding. Students are also the generation of future leaders. Recent manifestations of racism in many areas of Australian society have very disturbing implications for the future of racial harmony in this country. Promoting racial harmony in the higher education environment from which our future Ministers and leaders emanate is surely fundamental if Australia is to shed its growing reputation as a racist society. I believe that the financial hardship overseas students will suffer, the long term effects of this disregard for multiculturalism and the dangers of augmented racism will be matters for the Government's conscience. Unfortunately, it appears that this legislation has widespread support. I believe that it will create suffering and further disharmony in the community unless further measures are taken. I hope that the Government is receptive to some of the ideas that have been put forward in this debate. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.21) —I want to address myself to the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1984 in this cognate debate. This Bill is to authorise Australia's contribution of $200m to the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association. While the Australian Democrats support the Bill, because we fundamentally believe in the importance of our country's assistance to other countries, it raises important questions about the state of the international economy and the disbursal of international aid in particular. At present it is impossible to know where Australia's aid money given through multilateral agencies goes; that is the essential point. But we do know that it is passed from the World Bank to the International Development Association and then on to the borrowing country for development projects. We also know that the contributing countries-in this case Australia-have no say in how the money is distributed. There is no doubt that, in many cases, it goes to propping up corrupt regimes such as that in the Philippines. The Australian Democrats are not advocating that Australia should give money to the IDA with strings attached; however, it is with considerable concern that the Democrats note that the Hawke Government has voluntarily offered to contribute over and above the $200m. How much more? 'Significantly more' said the Treasurer , Mr Keating, in New York at the beginning of this month. The point is that this offer amounts to a reneging on Australia's moral obligations to know where our aid money is going. It is our duty to our citizens to know where that money is being spent because our Government is saying, in effect, that it wants to take the soft option-not give direct aid; not have to answer embarrassing questions on the effectiveness of that aid; not address itself to serious human rights issues; and not explain why it is supporting corrupt military regimes. That is the basic point. The Hawke Government is copping out. It has put these vital questions into the too hard basket. In effect it has decided to cut down direct aid and use multilateral bodies so that it can shirk its responsibilities. The Democrats are thoroughly opposed to that kind of attitude. Increasingly, aid money which is meant to be specifically for 'projects' is being given directly to the recipient country and its banks to administer. In the case of the Philippines, there have been proven cases of impropriety; cases where its reserves have been falsified so that money borrowed on the basis of these non-existent reserves has been used for balance of payment supports. In other words, the aid seldom gets anywhere near the people and the communities that it was intended for. Instead it has been used to service existing debts which have been incurred by governments to some extent preoccupied with and pandering to the ruling elite and feathering their Swiss bank accounts. I am prompted to speak of the Philippines in particular because during the weekend President Marcos announced that the Philippines was receiving a loan worth $A750m to keep the Philippines afloat so that it can pay interest on its $ 26 billion foreign debt. The Philippines is now the fourth largest recipient of direct Australian aid. In 1982-83 the Philippines received approximately $15.1m in aid and the estimated 1983-84 figure is about $17.25m. On 3 October this year I placed a question on notice which has still not been answered. I asked: Will the Australian Government continue to give military aid to the Philippines (estimated last year to be worth $1.6 million) . . . It has been estimated that the Philippines' defence budget is sufficient only to cover salaries and that the Philippines is armed by foreign military aid. Honourable senators will recall Father Brian Gore's experiences in the Philippines and the particularly nasty experience of one of his parishioners who had bought a cast-off military jacket in a market and who was then forced by a Filipino major to take it off and eat it. There are other forms of torture and compulsion in that country by the military. It is evident that the Filipino Government does not have control over its armed forces in the regional areas. The value of our bilateral aid program to the Philippines has been questioned on the grounds that road building projects, for example, may be beneficial to the regime in military terms but are of little benefit to the Barri communities concerned. The oppressive, brutal nature of the Marcos regime is well known. Reports reaching Australia over the last few years can only fill us with horror. I believe that they have not been given sufficient attention. The nature of the regime is an accepted fact. Nobody stands to defend the regime and I would be surprised to find anybody on the Government side doing so. It is bad enough that some of the money being appropriated through this Bill will finish up supporting the Marcoses of this world. But it is inconceivable that the Hawke Government would be prepared to contribute more aid money so as not to have to make decisions on human rights issues. The Australian Democrats ask this Government to reconsider that decision. The Democrats urge the Government to reassess the effectiveness of bilaterial aid to the Philippines in the light of the purpose of this aid. If this Government is totally impervious to the moral argument I am putting, let us take a pragmatic line which it might understand better, that aid to the Philippines is not in Australia's national interests. When the Marcos Government collapses, as it inevitably will and soon, the Australian Government will be seen as having tried to prop up a regime which Australia knew was brutal and oppressive. It could be said that by this short term attitude of trying to keep in with Marcos the Government is creating its own nightmare for the future-a nightmare in which it involves all Australian people. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.28) —I thank honourable senators for their support for the overseas students legislation. All honourable senators are equally concerned that the sorts of conflicts that arise between the reports of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and the Jackson Committee on Overseas Aid be resolved. As most people know, a task force has been looking at this matter and we expect a report pretty soon. I cannot give an exact date for the provision of that report. It is an important area. All the things that have been said about it tonight-the aid to overseas students, the contribution of overseas students to this country and the contribution of this country directly and indirectly through educating overseas students-are important. I do not accept Senator Watson's claim that the results of these increased charges will be catastrophic, nor is it true that we are pre- empting the Goldring report, the Jackson report, or any other report. I think that was made clear in the second reading speech. We have heard Senator Mason's views on overseas aid a lot. But this is legislation to provide for the seventh replenishment of the International Development Association. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, has already announced in New York that we will supplement that. The reason we are doing it in this way is that a country this size, with the volume of aid it gives, will have very great difficulty giving rational aid to any of the poorer countries unless we co- operate with other countries through the World Bank. Senator Mason suggested that we should give all our aid directly and go through the sorts of tests that he wants. That is probably ideal in an ideal world. But it is not an ideal world . If we are to give the sort of aid that is needed in Africa and the poorer countries we have to do it in co-operation with other countries. In the judgment of this Government one of the best ways to do it is through the IDA. I thank honourable senators for their co-operation and their support for both these pieces of legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Deputy President , I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Leave is granted. Senator BUTTON —This afternoon Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, issued a Press release in which he said: Capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties are now officially on the Hawke Government's agenda for changes to the tax system. He went on to say that I had said that in the course of an answer to a question at Question Time today. What I did say-I quote from the pinks-was: I told Senator Chaney as recently as yesterday, if he can remember back that far, that this Government was committed to a review of the taxation system. Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government-- Senator Chaney —How are you going, big mouth? Senator BUTTON —I object to the invective just used by the Leader of the Opposition. I seek a withdrawal. Senator Chaney —Did you get a withdrawal from the Prime Minister? Senator BUTTON —I have asked for a withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Chaney —I withdraw. I would not accuse the Leader of the Government of having a big mouth. Senator BUTTON —I do not know whether we are playing student politics here from some provincial town in Western Australia, but the honourable senator is not doing very well, if he does not mind my saying so. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Chaney, I think you should make an unqualified withdrawal. Senator Chaney —I withdraw. Senator BUTTON —I was quoting from what I said. Senator Chaney —Good, I am quoting from what you said too. Senator BUTTON —No, the honourable senator is not quoting from what I said. I repeat: Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Button, we have gone past the normal time to suspend the sitting. Sitting suspended from 6.32 to 8 p.m. Senator BUTTON —Mr Acting Deputy President, before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was making a personal explanation. You will recall that I did not have time to complete it because I was interrupted. Senator Chaney had to withdraw an offensive remark and that took some time so I was unable to complete the statement which I intended to make. Senator Chaney —Why don't you start again? Senator BUTTON —I propose to start again because of the interruption. I claim to have been misrepresented in a Press release which was issued this afternoon by Senator Chaney. It is the first sign of glee that he has shown for the last few days. In the Press statement which Senator Chaney issued, he said: Capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties are now officially on the Hawke Government's agenda for changes to the tax system. This was admitted in the Senate today by that well known supporter of such taxes, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, the third most senior Minister in the government. I find that, in part, a flattering description but I am certainly misrepresented in the part of the statement which alleges that I am a well known supporter of such taxes. There is nothing on the record-Senator Chaney can spend between now and Christmas looking for it-which describes me as a supporter of the three types of taxes which were mentioned. That is not the only misrepresentation in the Press release, of course. I repeat: The Government has no proposals before it for the introduction of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties. No submissions are being prepared or have been prepared and the Government is not giving consideration to any of these taxes as a matter of Government policy. What the Government has promised is a review of the tax system in order to make it more efficient and equitable. Because of the fundamental importance of this issue we will be consulting widely throughout the community in the context of a taxation review. Senator Chaney —Now you are ducking for cover. Senator BUTTON —I have been accused of ducking for cover. I am ducking for cover from what Senator Chaney said because it is quite untrue. I do not propose to burden myself with untruths in addition to the other burdens which I have. I quote what I in fact said: I told Senator Chaney as recently as yesterday, if he can remember back that far, that this Government was committed to a review of the taxation system. Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government, has to have questions of capital gains tax, wealth tax and death duties on the agenda. If Senator Chaney wishes to debase the coinage of Australian politics by saying that these issues should not be considered by political parties, if he is saying all of these things in the context of the political promises the Opposition has made in respect of the forthcoming election, then it is a very poor performance indeed from an Opposition. I was making the point that any reforms which may emerge from the complete review of the taxation system which the Government has undertaken to have will not result in any overall increase in the level of taxes and the Government has no preconceived ideas of the outcome. Senator Chaney wanted to make the point here that I have ideas about particular taxes. I concede that point. I have ideas about particular taxes. Senator Chaney —A government totally without any preconceived ideas about tax- how marvellous. Senator BUTTON —The Government has no preconceived ideas. I am quite unable to tell Senator Chaney or anybody else what the majority of the Cabinet would think , for example, about the issue of a capital gains tax because it has never been discussed in the Cabinet. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —It did not matter about the assets test. Senator BUTTON —Yes, we made a decision about that matter and in time, after a taxation review, we will make a decision about taxes. In the light of this it is quite misleading-indeed, dishonest-for Senator Chaney to assert that these taxes are officially 'on the Hawke Government agenda for changes to the tax system'. What I said was that when one is reviewing the tax system in the way that is envisaged by the Government, one must realise that such things as the taxes I have mentioned would inevitably come up for consideration. Previous major reviews, such as the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System in 1981 and the Asprey Taxation Review Committee in 1975, considered these taxes as any review of the taxation system would and should. I maintain that it is not possible to decide that certain elements of an overall tax structure would never be considered. Every thinking person-I like to include myself in that description-who looks at these matters would acknowledge that fact. I make this statement not because I regard it as particularly important in an election context, but because I would not like Senator Chaney's dishonest Press statement, which misrepresents my position, to go unchallenged. That is the only reason I make this statement. Insofar as the broad issue of taxation is concerned, we will handle it in the context of the election campaign in the way that I have suggested. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.07) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a statement about the matters raised. Senator Elstob —I should knock that back. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I appreciate this opportunity and I thank Senator Elstob for restraining his very natural inclinations in this matter. I listened with very great interest to the comments made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and my thoughts were taken back to his speech in the Senate yesterday when I thought he did his bit, to use his words from Question Time today, to 'debase the coinage of Australian politics' in the debate on taxation. Quite apart from taking the extraordinary stance that he has repeated here tonight-that his Government is going into an election saying nothing about its attitude to taxation; it is a government without any preconception about the form of tax system that it might like to lumber the Australian people with, which is an extraordinary stance for a government that is supposedly responsible -he also indulged in a bit of John Howard bashing which sat ill with his plea this morning that we should deal with these matters in a more sensible way and debate the issues more sensibly. I remind the Senate that yesterday he laid about with what he knows to be a quite fictitious point-- Senator Button —Mr Acting Deputy President, I made a personal explanation relating to a particular matter-a Press statement issued by Senator Chaney this afternoon. That Press statement arose quite explicitly in its own terms from an answer which I gave in the Senate at question time today. If Senator Chaney wants to canvass what he describes as John Howard bashing because I happened to quote the former Treasurer's views on capital gains tax, that is for another time and place. It has nothing to do with the personal explanation which I made. Senator CHANEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, in the same way that Senator Grimes yesterday, following a personal explanation by Senator Teague, sought leave to make a statement and proceeded to debate the issues, I sought leave to make a statement. I did not seek leave to make a statement on any particular narrow grounds. I will get to the question and the personal explanation-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Senator Chaney sought leave to make a statement. He was granted leave by this chamber. Senator Chaney, you recognise the broadness of your remarks, and I ask you to attend to that. Senator CHANEY —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have just a couple of other points to make about that and then I will get on to Senator Button's personal explanation about the question today. Senator Button used the $9.6 billion figure which he knows to be a fiction and which he knows is based on estimates which his Government was not prepared to release this year because of the unreliable nature of the statistics. He also sought to attribute to John Howard views which were contained in a paper which was prepared at the request of the Parliamentary Library, the research service which services this Parliament, and which, as I said in debate yesterday, was a paper commissioned by the Library as 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. As in the answer to the question today, Senator Button again chided the Opposition for not being prepared to debate these issues in the way that he thought appropriate. I simply say that I thought that Senator Button's contribution to the debate yesterday had all the defects about which he complained. We have a situation-Senator Button faced a question today on this situation-in which this Government is refusing to disclose to the Australian people its stance on a series of issues which are of concern to the electorate. The question that was addressed to Senator Button touched on the issue of taxes on capital, a matter which is of interest and concern to many Australians. It touched upon the Government's intentions with respect to national Aboriginal land rights legislation, a matter on which there have been diverse and divers statements from the Government, with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) switching direction yesterday in the Northern Territory and totally reversing a point of view that he put just two weeks ago. I raised the issue of interest rates on housing loans and small overdrafts, on which we did not get a answer from Senator Button this morning, and I raised at least one other issue of concern on which this Government is simply not prepared to come clean. Senator Grimes —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: You said that Senator Chaney sought leave to make a statement, and therefore-- Senator Kilgariff —Like Senator Button. Senator Grimes —No, Senator Button made a personal explanation. Senator Peter Rae —Wide ranging! Senator Grimes —I remind the Senate that Senator Chaney, as Hansard will show, said 'I wish to make a statement on the same subject'-the same subject as Senator Button. The letter of the Standing Orders of this place may enable Senator Chaney to make a statement as broad and as wide-in fact, a full speech- as he is doing. However, I just point out, as the Deputy President has pointed out on several occasions, that if the capacity to seek leave to make a statement is abused repeatedly in this way, honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will get a bit fed up with it and will start refusing leave, in the way in which Senator Chaney refused leave to Senator Elstob yesterday before he even heard what Senator Elstob had to say. I just point out that Senator Chaney is now talking about Aboriginal land rights and all sorts of things which had nothing to do with Senator Button's statement-as well as the pompous little lectures that Senator Chaney gives us; but we have to put up with those all the time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —There is no point of order. Senator Chaney sought leave to make a statement and was granted leave by this chamber. Senator CHANEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am dealing with the question that was specifically put to Senator Button. I am dealing with that question and the answers which Senator Button gave or refused to give. In fact, he gave one answer-and he is quite right; I was very pleased that he chose to at least answer one part of the question. The fact of the matter, Mr Acting Deputy President, is that the points of order which are being taken simply reflect the Government's sensitivity to the fact that it is trying to bury issues, that it is trying not to answer questions and that it does not like being put in a position in which its intentions might become apparent. One element, one quarter of my question to Senator Button today, related to a matter which had been raised at Question Time over a period of weeks-the Government's intentions with respect to taxes on capital, be it a capital gains tax, a wealth tax or any form of tax on capital. The Government has clearly been desperately trying to avoid taking a position. Senator Button has been saying ' Of course, you know my personal view', and I think that he agrees that he is personally in favour of a capital gains tax. He has told us tonight that he is not in favour of the other forms of tax on capital to which I have referred. Senator Button —I did not say that at all. Senator CHANEY —The honourable senator is not saying that. Good. Senator Button —I have expressed no view on that. This is the third misrepresentation. Senator CHANEY —Senator Button has no view on that. I wish to refer precisely to what Senator Button said in answer to the question. I remind the Senate that his answer to the question followed lectures to the Opposition on the fact that it ought to be prepared to debate these matters properly and that these matters ought to be carefully considered. In response to Senator Button, I would say that the Government is under an obligation, if it is serious about having a debate on these matters, to give us its views, so that those views can be debated, and it should not hide behind some inquiry which is to be held at some future time so that it does not have to declare its views. This is the most specious, illogical and dishonest approach to an election that can be imagined. Senator Button answered the question today with some irritation. Senator Button does not often get irritated or, if he does, he does not often show it. Today he showed it. Perhaps that is why he came out with a little more than he wanted to say and why he is now trying to clamber back. He said: I have answered the questions about capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties in this Senate on numerous occasions. I interpolate to say that the truth of the matter is that he has not answered the questions which have been put to him on numerous occasions. He went on to say: I told Senator Chaney as recently as yesterday, if he can remember back that far, that this Government was committed to a review of the taxation system. Here are the critical words: Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government, has to have questions of capital gains tax, wealth tax and death duties on the agenda. Those were his words: Any responsible government that tackles a review of the taxation system, which the Opposition parties did not do in seven years of government, has to have questions of capital gains tax, wealth tax and death duties on the agenda. In my Press release I said: Capital gains taxes, wealth taxes and death duties are now officially on the Hawke Government's agenda for changes to the tax system. At the same time as I made that Press release available I also made available copies of the precise words used by the honourable senator. There was no attempt in any way to mislead. I think that his words speak for themselves. I am sure that other independent commentators will have read his words in exactly the same way as I have. At last a Minister in this government has at least come to the point where he admits that on the agenda for the Government's review are all of these taxes. The Government is trying to scamper out from under because an election is around the corner, but the reality is that they are there. This has been Senator Button's day for making a contribution to a bit of honest debate on these economic issues. I am told that in Melbourne this morning Senator Button said in answer to a question: I think the economic recovery will continue in the somewhat patchy way it has into 1985 and probably into 1986 . . . as has been said in the context of this congress already, that the Government will have very significant budgetary problems in 1985 . . . We have been making those points in here and we have been told by Government speakers that it is a lot of rubbish. I am delighted to find at last that Senator Button has come clean and has been prepared to admit that there are these difficulties. I am very pleased-- Senator Button —Mr Acting Deputy President, do you still make the same ruling as you made earlier that the subject of Senator Chaney's statement is the same as my personal explanation? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —My understanding was that Senator Chaney's-- Senator Button —It does not bother me. He can go on with his scrappy report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —My understanding was that Senator Chaney sought leave to make a statement. He was granted leave by the chamber. Senator Button —So you say that he is at large on any issue? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Under the Standing Orders, yes, he is, but I ask Senator Chaney, in the spirit in which leave was given, to confine his remarks. Senator CHANEY —Mr Acting Deputy President, I have almost completed my remarks. I simply say that I think it is quite ludicrous for this Government to expect to go to the Australian people in an election which it has called nearly 18 months ahead of time and not be prepared to tell the Australian people where it stands on a series of significant issues, irrespective of whether they are in respect of taxation, Aboriginal land or any other matter. I can only say that I for one am grateful to the Leader of the Government in the Senate for the fact that for a few brief moments he has been prepared to come clean on these matters. I welcome that. I am sorry that he was forced, by whatever circumstances-I do not know-to come in here and to try to retrieve his words uttered so recently in this place. Debate resumed from 3 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.20) -I address my remarks to the State (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1984 and the Housing Assistance Bill 1984. I preface my remarks by indicating that the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. Indeed, any legislation that is relevant to the development of housing in this country is important, and this legislation is important for another reason. Senator Button —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I ask that Senator Chaney be asked to withdraw a remark he has made for the second time this evening, which was directed at Senator Grimes and me. He said that we were just a bunch of shysters. That is not parliamentary language. It may well be Senator Chaney's views but this is the second time Senator Chaney has said it this evening. A gentleman of Senator Chaney's perspicacity should relax. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Collard) —Order! There is no point of order . We are in the middle of a debate. Senator Scott is speaking. Neither the Minister nor Senator Chaney had the floor. I call Senator Scott. Senator SCOTT —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was making the point that any Bill that concerns housing in this country is important and the Housing Assistance Bill is directed towards providing housing assistance for the low and middle income earner. There can be no doubt that Bills which deal with the housing industry are of significance in a number of ways. They are significant because they contribute to the impact that a successful housing and building industry has on the community. These Bills are important in that in this circumstance they represent basically a continuance of the legislation that was brought in in 1981 in the coalition Government era. I refer to legislation which contributed a great deal to the success of the housing industry in recent years. The Government's move in this case is based on that of the previous legislation. The Liberal and National parties have always been concerned about the provision of housing assistance because one of their basic philosophical stances is to enable a large measure of home ownership in the community. The history of the industry suggests that that aim has been brought about. In 1949 or thereabouts there was approximately 57 per cent or 58 per cent home ownership in this country. By the early 1970s home ownership had risen to 68 per cent, one of the highest levels of any country in the world. That occurred after 20 years of Liberal-National Party government. In the next two or three years of socialism, that figure fell, unfortunately, to 65 per cent or 66 per cent. In the years that followed the coalition again raised the level of home ownership in Australia to approximately 69 per cent, which is a very high figure for any country. The Housing Assistance Bill authorises the Government to enter into a 10-year agreement with the States and the Northern Territory for the provision of home purchase and rental assistance for low and moderate income earners. It seeks to provide some sort of permanence in that area in that it covers a 10-year period. The Bill provides for funding of some $623m in the first year and base funding of $500m for the next two years. Of course, those figures will need to be monitored because they take no cognisance of the inflation rate or of general costs as they rise or even fall in the period involved. Nevertheless, that amount is to be provided. The other matter that I think is worthy of mention is that the base figure will be observed from year to year. It is only for the current year and for the two following years that we have anything specific. Those figures do not take into account the effect of inflation on the housing industry and on the community that depends very much on it, not only members of the community who are seeking to build and own houses but also that vast range of people who are in some measure dependent on a successful building industry for their own economic survival. The legislation also provides for specific housing assistance in a number of areas which are of concern, I am sure, not only to the Government but certainly also to the Opposition parties. Those areas are pensioner and Aboriginal housing , crisis accommodation, mortgage and rent relief and local government and community housing. The Bill seeks to establish low start loans, the repayment of those loans to be linked to income. The Federal funding of this project is to be matched on a dollar for dollar basis by the States and by the Northern Territory . The funds will be allocated to the States on a basis that was set out in the 1981 legislation to which I referred previously. The legislation seeks to move towards per capita funding of public housing in the States with the exception that consideration will be given to population and the problems of the smaller States. So although the basis will be per capita, there is to be a recognition of the problems of the less populated States. Youth and single people will now be eligible for public housing, although I am afraid that already other provisions for single people have been withdrawn from this legislation. Under this legislation rents for public housing will be based on the cost of provision and not on market rents. That is an interesting proposition. An argument can be advanced that that is a good thing. Up to a point it is a good thing. It may be cheaper in the short term but in the long term I suppose that market value is significant if the taxpayer is to get a reasonable return for the moneys that he or she invests in the public housing field. The proposition that rents for public housing should be related to cost and not to market rents needs to be examined very carefully. It certainly needs to be monitored. There is provision in the legislation for a rental purchase program. The legislation also makes provision for local government and community organisations to become involved in public housing. Basically the Bills cover the areas that were established in 1981. They seek to provide housing accommodation for low and middle income groups at rentals or payments that are related in some way to income, in other words, to people's capacity to pay. The Opposition supports this legislation for what it seeks to do, even though there are some elements in it, to which I have referred, that at the very least will need very close monitoring. But we support the legislation and we will observe its performance over the coming months as it is legislation in an extraordinarily important area of the Australian economy, and particularly of Australian society. I suppose that home ownership provides not only a measure of pride and involvement in the community; it is also in no small way relevant to the family standard and the family capacity to remain, as I believe it is, the basic unit of this society. Any legislation that seeks genuinely to establish a better circumstance in the area of home ownership-an area in which the Liberal and National parties have been very prominent indeed in the political history of this country-is a good and proper piece of legislation. I indicate the support of the Opposition for this legislation. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(8.31) —I wish to speak briefly to the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1984 and the Housing Assistance Bill 1984. It has become quite a custom at this stage of the year for us to have a fairly wide- ranging discussion on housing. I miss the fact that my old friend, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, is not here to have the usual debate that he and I seem to have developed over a period of years. The Bills continue very much in the same pattern and cover the same area as have similar Bills in the past. They provide the renewal of a long on-going program. There will always be a need for the community to look after those who need it, as there is a need to encourage others to avoid looking to government for help when they should not have to look to government for help. As a parliament we can do much to press for ownership or ownership prospects for people generally. If we can encourage people to own their own homes it takes much of the burden off the various authorities which have to maintain the houses, look after rental collections and carry on the general run of things that go with home ownership and which home owners do for themselves. It is becoming extraordinarily expensive for housing divisions of various States and the Commonwealth to maintain their houses, collect the rents and meet the housing costs. There is much to be said for encouraging the pride of ownership and ensuring that everyone who wishes to do so can become what Mr Dedman referred to as a little capitalist. We should encourage people to achieve that aim, if that is their aim . I still question whether the very substantial grant by itself is the most appropriate assistance that can be given to housing. I find that it encourages people to go into price brackets which in many cases are beyond their apparent means. They then undertake very tight repayment programs which can be very easily upset. There should be more encouragement of assistance in the repayment sector. That needs to be watched, particularly as we are going into even further changing economic times. I am of the opinion that overall taxation and employment policies have the biggest effect on people's capacity not only to buy but also to sustain the purchase of a home once bought. I believe that greater consideration still has to be given to having income-linked mortgages for the general promotion and development of home ownership schemes. I think when we have got that far we will have a fundamentally sound and thorough housing system . As I have already said, I see private home ownership as absolutely fundamental. I believe that should be the direction in which we go. I point to three cautions , however. Firstly, the policies under which we are presently operating were designed as economic stimulants, not just to catch up on a housing program but actually to promote a distinct change in the whole economic market at the time. The Government saw that as a way of being able to prime the market. This has placed enormous pressures on the market, and that pressure is very visible here in Canberra, as in most other places in Australia. The result of these pressures is that market prices have absolutely skyrocketed. Giving people money by grants has driven up the prices in most cases by considerably more than the amount of the grant and, in some places by several times the grant. I believe that must be watched. What happens when the grant is seen to be no longer electorally or economically advantageous and it is either cut back or removed? We will then look to see whether housing prices hold. If the prices do not hold, what then? Secondly, the vast new group of home owners has been stretched to absolute limits in terms of financial commitments. All around Australia those people who have bought houses with the aid of grants in the last 18 months are now on very high repayment tables. I believe it is inevitable that we will have higher inflation and higher interest rates. I believe therefore that it is necessary for there to be a proper contingency plan to put into effect when these higher inflation rates and interest rates are realised in the fairly short foreseeable future. The third caution is that the market is running well above any expectation of sustainable levels. At the moment we are producing and selling houses at a greater rate than could normally be expected to last. Already the various housing organisations are pointing out that this is starting to flatten off. By this time next year there could be a quite substantial downturn. What is the Government doing as far as the maintenance of this level of housing is concerned? What does the Government see as the sustainable level of housing? Over what period does the Government intend to bring the rate of housing back to a sustainable level to avoid the inevitable crunch if we have a severe overrun, which appears quite likely at present? I believe we need to address ourselves to those three points. While we are very pleased that the housing market has picked up and that people have been able to get into houses, we do know that the market cannot last on the present basis. I look to the Government to tell us what it proposes around the corner. There is one other matter arising from those questions that I believe we also should be told about. We would expect the Government to change the housing assistance programs. Whether this is done in an election context or, if the Government is re-elected, in the context of the mini-Budget that will inevitably follow, what changes can people on the outside expect? What changes will this mean, either to those who have recently bought houses or to those who would see themselves in the very near future in that market? The housing market Australia-wide has been very satisfactory in the last 12 months, with enormous turnovers and considerable developments in every State. Prices have risen markedly. In fact we have taken up not only last year's slack and, this year's slack but also probably next year's and that of the year after as well. It concerns me that, to all intents and purposes, single people have been eliminated from the housing market. It seems that single people who are genuinely single are unable to obtain housing but if they enter into a de facto relationship they are eligible. I would be pleased if the Minister would in summing up give us some information on that as well. I support the Bills. I commend the Government on them and look forward to the continuation of the program. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.41) —I thank Senator Scott and Senator Archer for their contributions to this debate and for their support of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill and the Housing Assistance Bill. Briefly, housing is considered by the Federal Government to be very important and it plays a large part in the Government's policy for the economic recovery which we are fortunate enough to be presiding over at the moment. As Senator Archer said, the increase in housing expenditure and in approvals and constructions in this country has been very heartening for the Government and for the whole community. It has spin-off effects throughout the community in industries associated with housing. It has a job creation effect, and the multiplier effects of increases in housing and construction generally are and always will be very important in the economic development of this country. Part of this development relates to schemes such as the first home owners scheme, part relates to this Government's contribution now, and I am sure in the future, to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and part relates also to the fact that funds must always be provided for those who are unable to obtain private finance. Under the CSHA about 30 per cent of funds will be used by the States to provide home ownership for that group. I have heard Senator Archer in the past express his concern about the overheating, as he sees it, of the market or the industry, now and in the future . The Government certainly does not share his pessimism although we will continue to monitor the situation. I do not believe that the industry shares the pessimism that he expresses. Under the new agreements we hope that there will be a continuing beneficial balance in our policies to encourage home ownership, our policies to encourage the States, local governments and community groups to provide accommodation for those who need assistance to get accommodation, and our provision of housing in traditional as well as innovative ways. We are happy with the results of our housing policy. I believe the States, and the community generally, are happy with the results of our housing policy and I think that is reflected in the general support for this legislation in both this place and the other place. I thank honourable senators for their support for the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. The PRESIDENT —Further to the question asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, relating to the tabling of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, I now table a copy of the correspondence between myself and the Attorney-General, together with related papers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(8.46) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. Mr President, I do not wish to say very much about these papers because, although you were kind enough to have them delivered to my office before coming into the Senate, I have had an opportunity only to scan them and have not really observed them. I am a little concerned at the fact that the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) advised that while he will indemnify you for your actions as a servant of the Senate, he is not able to extend on behalf of the Government an indemnity to other senators. That is a matter of some significance in view of the answers given by the Attorney-General in this place in recent days. As I recall, the Attorney-General pointed out that protection would be given to the report in Victoria, New South Wales, and indeed in the Australian Capital Territory, because of the statutory provisions in New South Wales and Victoria and the likelihood that the report will be tabled in the Victorian Parliament, and also because of the particular statutory provisions here in the Australian Capital Territory, which are of very recent origin. The Opposition will need to consider where this leaves the Senate and individual senators who will be the recipients of the information that will be made available by the Government with the tabling of the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. The matter is of very considerable significance in the fight against organised crime in Australia. It may also be of some political significance. Mr President, at this stage I would not wish to predict whether the Opposition will consider it necessary to seek a return of the Senate prior to the election to enable the documents to be tabled here in the usual way as well as their being dealt with according to the procedure mentioned in the documents, namely delivery to you and subsequent distribution. I have noted the answers given by the Attorney-General in this place. I do not remember his exact words, but I think he was suggesting that it would take a bold lawyer to advise with certainty on the precise situation of privilege. As I recall, he said that there would almost certainly be qualified privilege-in other words, that one would have a defence which could be pushed aside on the argument that something had been done maliciously but that there was room for doubt. I ventured by way of interjection, and will say so on my feet now, the view of a journeyman solicitor that if I were advising honourable senators on this matter, my advice would certainly be that, given the ongoing status of the Senate, which is referred to in the Attorney-General's letter which you have tabled, Mr President, it is certainly likely to be a sounder argument that honourable senators would have protection if the documents had been tabled in this place than if the other procedure is followed. I do not take a final position on that. I simply indicate my present view because the Attorney-General may wish to consider the matter further and to put other views to us before the Senate rises. I thank you, Mr President, for your courtesy to us all in dealing with this matter in the way you have. In terms of the functioning of the Senate, it is helpful that you have kept us informed and let us have access to the material. I shall give the material more careful consideration and I may wish to address some remarks to you and to the rest of the Senate on the matter. I do not wish to prevent anyone else, particularly the Attorney or the Australian Democrats, making a comment. Therefore, I shall not seek leave to continue my remarks. I suppose I can always ask someone to move an amendment to the motion to take note if I cannot get leave to make further comments at a later time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.50) —I do not want to canvass any of the subsequent matters that have been mentioned by Senator Chaney, except perhaps to clarify one small factual matter that might set the sleuths on the other side into a small lather of excitement. The note to you, Mr President, from the Clerk of 12 October, which is one of the papers tabled here, indicates in the first paragraph: Contact was made with the Attorney-General's Office, notifying them of the concern I had expressed both to you and to the Department of P.M. & C. The suggestion perhaps flowing from that is that I was aware of the nature of the concern that had been expressed by the Clerks but, nonetheless, charged into the Senate and moved the motion accordingly. I simply want to make it clear for the record, as I have made it clear to you, Mr President, that I was not in fact aware that the Clerks had raised this question, although it had been the subject of some discussion with my office. It was just a problem of communication and in the rush of events I had not caught up with what was happening. If I can divert the Opposition's attention from any enthusiasm it might have to pursue those sorts of cares, I acknowledge that there are some substantive issues of difficulty here. Although as I said in Question Time today there is not likely to be any difficulty whatsoever so far as the eastern States are concerned, or certainly Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, if the document is tabled, as it is expected to be, in the Victorian Parliament. But there is a residual area of uncertainty so far as the other States are concerned and so far as further publications by persons other than the President and the two honourable senators are concerned. There is no easy way of resolving that degree of uncertainty, but I suggest that the problem is essentially academic and ought not detain the Senate too long. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bills be now read a first time. Senator Scott-Mr President, I understand that we are discussing only the wheat marketing Bills at this stage. Is that the position? The PRESIDENT —As I understand it the whole six wheat Bills were taken together. Senator Scott-But about 20 Bills are listed on the Order of Business sheet as cognate Bills, all of them primary industry Bills. I wondered whether the Government has decided to break them up. The PRESIDENT —As I understand it this is a first reading debate. It was agreed that the six wheat Bills would be taken together but the others are of a second reading nature. If it is the wish of the Senate that they all be taken together, I suggest that you seek leave to debate the lot of them together. Senator Chaney-Mr President, could I make some comments. As I understand it, the Government wishes to debate some 20 rural Bills in the one batch. That is not something that has been sought by the Opposition but it has considered the situation. Given the fact that the Government has called an election we will not seek the three or four debates that one could sensibly produce by dividing up these Bills. I would like some clear indication from the Government that it is the Government's wish that these 20 Bills be dealt with together because in a sense I think that is not the best way for us to deal with such a wide range of legislation. As I say, we thought we would go along with the situation. This has always been shown in the Government's program as a 20 Bill group, but essentially our agreement was based on the exigencies of the unnecessary early election. If the Government does not want to have a cognate debate I think we should be told that. If it does want a cognate debate that should come clearly from the Government side of the chamber. Senator Grimes-I am sorry it was not clear to the Opposition that we wished to debate all 20 Bills in a cognate debate. I thought that was the arrangement with the Opposition Whips. I therefore suggest that that would be the sensible thing to do. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for all the Bills to be debated cognately? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a first time. [COGNATE BILLS: DRIED VINE FRUITS EQUALISATION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1984 CANNED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 (No. 2) FISHERIES LICENCES LEVY BILL 1984 FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1984 MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 DAIRY PRODUCTS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGGS (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1984 EGG EXPORT LEGISLATION REPEAL BILL 1984 LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) VALIDATION BILL 1983] Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.57) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- WHEAT MARKETING BILL 1984 Mr President, this Bill implements the Government's decisions on the elements of the wheat marketing arrangements which will apply from the 5 years commencing on 1 October 1984. The wheat arrangements automatically expire at the end of each 5 year period when a complete review takes place. The review has been completed, the IAC has submitted a report to Government and consultations have been held with the States and the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation (AWF). The scheme is a co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and State Governments because certain essential elements are the constitutional responsibility of the States. Complementary legislation will therefore be required in each of the States to implement a national scheme and I understand that legislation will be passed by the States as soon as their parliamentary programs allow. Overview Mr President, the Bills continue in operation the basic elements of the current wheat marketing arrangement. Growers' net returns will be underwritten at 95% and they will receive a high first advance from the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) when they deliver their wheat. Changes made in the basis of calculating the underwritten price will reduce the risk to the Government of the guarantee. Export marketing will continue to be the prerogative of the AWB. Changes in domestic marketing will bring the administered domestic prices more in line with export parity pricing, and enable stockfeed wheat to be traded outside the normal pooling arrangements under permit issued by the AWB. The home consumption price of wheat will fall in the new plan but the Tasmanian Freight Subsidy will continue with certain changes, pending its examination by the Inter-State Commission. The Government has also agreed to change the membership structure of the AWB to add to its financial and marketing expertise. The Wheat Finance Fund will be wound up and the monies returned to growers. Underwriting/First Advance I will now briefly describe the operation of the major provisions in the Bills. I turn first to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1984. The Government will continue to underwrite 95% of wheat returns on a net basis calculated through a guaranteed minimum price (GMP) for Australian Standard White (ASW) wheat. There is, however , a change in the method of calculating the GMP in that the high priced year has been removed from the averaging formula. The basis will now be the estimated returns from the subject season and the lowest 2 of the previous 3 seasons. This avoids the triggering of a Government underwriting commitment because of a short term rise in prices rather than a fall. A further change is that only the subject season's costs will be underwritten rather than the current 3 year moving average. This will ensure that the Government's liability is not increased by unusual cost rises such as occurred in the 1983-84 season with its record crop and high proportion of weather damaged wheat. Once the GMP has been established for ASW wheat, the Bill provides for guaranteed differentials to apply to other specified categories of wheat based on the expected market value of those grades relative to ASW. Instead of receiving the full advance payment on delivery, growers will receive a split first advance. The Minister will determine the interim GMP by 1 October each year. Growers will be paid on delivery 90% of the then estimated GMP and guaranteed differential. Early in the season, the Minister will determine the final GMP and at which time the remainder of the first advance will be paid to growers. The Bill provides that the final GMP be determined no later than 1 March. However, it is the intention of the Minister and the AWB that the final advance payment be made to growers during February. Mr President, as several aspects of these advance payment arrangements are new there is great interest among growers as to how they will operate. I will therefore provide some examples for illustrative purposes of the operation of the underwriting and first advance arrangements in the coming season. I should stress that these arrangements are not final. The actual interim GMP and guaranteed differentials will be announced in the next few weeks. The interim ASW GMP for 1984-85 can be expected to be slightly below that for 1983-84. This is due partly to the generally flat state of world prices and partly to removal of the high year from the underwriting formula. I expect the AWB to advise the Minister that there will be 4 categories of wheat (in addition to ASW) to which guaranteed differentials will apply i.e., 2 above and 2 below ASW. The interim GMP for these growers will therefore be the ASW GMP plus or minus the differential. The first advance payment to all growers will be 90% of these interim GMPs (less the normal State handling and transport charges). When the final GMP is determined early next year the remainder of the first advance will be paid to all growers. The AWB intends to operate provisional allowances for quality within each category of wheat. This will ensure that all growers will receive the eventual market return which their wheat achieves so long as the Government underwriting liability is not triggered. The definition of a wheat season has been changed to 1 July-30 June to take into account the early harvesting of wheat in Queensland. AWB Powers The Government has accepted that the financing of wheat receivals and their marketing required that the AWB operate on futures markets. This Bill increases the commercial flexibility of the AWB by enabling it to operate on the U.S. corn futures markets and, to operate a cash out option for equities in pools. Its capital expenditure limit without ministerial approval has been increased to $ 500,000. It will also be empowered to operate combination cargoes of wheat and other grain, but must deal with the State marketing boards and not directly with farmers. All of the above changes, which are primarily the Commonwealth Government's responsibility, have the general agreement of the AWF. The Bill provides that the AWB must still obtain the approval of the Public Service Board to the terms and conditions of AWB staff. However, when the Government has decided on its general policy on the remuneration of statutory authority officers, the Minister and the Minister for Finance will reconsider the AWB's staffing position. AWB Membership The Government has agreed to increase the marketing and financial expertise on the AWB. The functions of the AWB have dramatically changed in recent years and have involved much more sophisticated and complex financial arrangements. These include enormous commercial borrowings, both in Australia and overseas, the use of futures markets and matching credit sales receipts with borrowing repayments. The time is therefore ripe to change the Board structure which has not altered for many years. As soon as possible the Minister will be replacing the current representatives of the flour millers and the unions (and the position of Finance Member) with experts in finance and marketing as well as appointing an additional member for expertise in Government affairs. This 15 person Board will continue in office until October 1985. The Minister will ensure that a review is conducted of the AWB's performance in about May next year in which the industry and the States will be consulted. After considering the results of the review, the Minister will then bring forward legislation in 1985 to establish the Board structure to operate from 1 October 1985. From now on the AWB will have a statutory obligation to consult with the AWF. Domestic Pricing and Marketing All the above matters are basically the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. However there are other important aspects of the scheme which are the constitutional responsibility of the States. Provision is made for these matters in the Commonwealth legislation but in order for them to be effective in the States the same provisions must be included in the State complementary legislation. One such matter is domestic pricing. There will be a new method for determining the domestic price of human consumption wheat (HCP). This involves a quarterly determination based on the averaging of the AWB's export prices for the forward quarter and the past quarter. In addition, the price will include a margin per tonne which relates to the cost to the AWB of servicing the domestic market. After consulting with his State colleagues on the issue the Minister has announced a margin of $16 per tonne. The HCP for 1984/85 is $195.25 per tonne. This arrangement has resulted in a significant fall in the price of human consumption wheat of about $24 per tonne and should therefore bring down the price of bread. Another significant change which is the responsibility of the States is the proposal to enable domestic stockfeed wheat to be traded directly between growers and buyers under permit issued by the AWB but outside the normal pooling arrangements. The IAC recommended that private traders operate more freely in domestic marketing and the Minister received many representations which indicate that there can be substantial savings both to users and growers under this permit system. The system will operate under guidelines issued by the Minister and in addition may be subject to guidelines issued by State Ministers. These guidelines have not yet been finalised. However, the Minister is holding urgent discussions with State Ministers to finalise the guidelines in order that the permit system can be introduced on a standard date throughout Australia. I hope that an announcement will be able to be made on that date within the next few weeks. Direct grower to buyer sale through the normal pooling arrangements will continue to be possible. AWB/Authorised Receivers Delivery of wheat in the States will continue to be required to the State Authorised receivers on the AWB's behalf. However, instead of having one remuneration agreement for these services with all authorised receivers for an indefinite period, the AWB will enter a new agreement with each receiver by 1 October 1985 which will expire in 1989 at the same time as other elements of the arrangements. Wheat Finance Fund The Fund will be wound up and therefore no grower deductions for the Fund will be necessary in the future. Moreover, the contributions collected in 1983/84 plus any interest earned will be paid out as soon as possible after the passage of the legislation. This amount of about $16 million will be repaid to those growers with the oldest outstanding equity in the Fund ie., from the 1980/81 and 1981/82 pools. The remaining monies in the fund, comprising the $100 million plus outstanding interest, will be repaid to growers as soon as practicable after 1 July 1985. Conclusion Mr President, I believe that the new wheat marketing package has been generally well received by the industry and provides a sound basis for the future growth of one of Australia's largest and most efficient agricultural industries. I commend the Bill to the Senate. WHEAT MARKETING AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Mr President, the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill amends the current legislation in two important respects. First, it amends the calculation of the Government's underwriting liability in the case of a payout to ensure that the liability matches the Australian Wheat Board's borrowings and that growers' premium entitlements are protected. Secondly, it sets out the arrangements for the repayment of the Wheat Finance Fund. Wheat Finance Fund The Wheat Finance Fund will be wound up and therefore no grower deductions for the Fund will be necessary in the future. Moreover, the contributions collected in 1983-84 plus any interest earned will be paid out as soon as possible after the passage of the legislation. This amount of about $60m will be repaid to those growers with the oldest outstanding equity in the Fund, that is, from the 1980-81 and 1981-82 pools. The remaining monies in the Fund, comprising the $ 100m plus outstanding interest, will be repaid to growers as soon as practicable after 1 July 1985. I commend the Bill to the Senate. WHEAT TAX (PERMIT) BILL 1984 Mr President, the Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill enables the agreed fees to be imposed for the issue of permits for domestic stockfeed wheat sales outside the normal pooling arrangements. This fee will comprise the wheat research tax, the Tasmanian freight subsidy tax, and if a particular State desires, an authorised receiver charge. I commend the Bill to the Senate. WHEAT TAX (PERMIT) COLLECTION BILL 1984 Mr President, this Bill enables the Australian Wheat Board to collect the fees to be imposed for the issue of permits for domestic stockfeed wheat sales outside the normal pooling arrangements. I commend the Bill to the Senate. WHEAT RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Mr President, this Bill amends the Wheat Research Act 1957 to enable the payment to the wheat research account of the wheat research taxes collected by the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) in respect of wheat actually purchased under permit issued by the AWB for the sale of domestic stockfeed wheat outside the normal wheat pools. I commend the Bill to the Senate. WHEAT TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1984 Mr President, this Bill extends, for the duration of the new wheat arrangements , the imposition of the wheat research tax, on grower to buyer wheat sales through the normal pooling arrangements. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(8.58) -It is, I believe, something of a shame that we should be debating such a mass of Bills in one group as we are tonight. All sorts of elements contribute to the fact that we are doing that. I say it is a shame because these Bills, even though many of them are virtually machinery Bills, are relevant to Australia's greatest industries. Today primary industries still represent approximately 50 per cent of this country's total export earning capacity and it seems to me a shame that at this late point in the session we should be trying to debate, discuss and analyse the circumstances of this vastly important and varied area of the Australian economy. However, that is the way it is. It is a part of the Australian economy that very significantly in the last couple of years has literally brought this country out of probably the worst depression and certainly the worst drought-related depression that it has ever known. Indeed, the breaking of that drought and the resurgence of these great industries was fundamental to the recovery of the whole Australian economy. I think it ill becomes us ever to forget that fact. These industries that have significantly raised the Australian economy in the last year or two need very understanding treatment today. Primary industry cannot pull itself out of a significant trough in 12 months, two years or even three or four years. There needs to be a very great, genuine and deep-seated concern by governments for these industries if they are to establish the sort of base that historically they have had in the Australian economy. They are confronted by a number of problems that are relevant to government today. They are confronted by the threat of capital taxation, which we have discussed on a number of occasions. That is one of the most severe problems that confronts an industry which has a significant part of its capacity involved in capital, whether it be in land or equipment. Today, somewhat ironically, the necessary equipment very often makes up 50 per cent, 60 per cent or even more of the value of the land involved. So capital taxation is of enormous concern across the board to primary industries. We have seen almost a wiping away of the income equalisation deposits which have been a significant contributor in stabilising rural industry. May be it is not yet too late for the Government to take a much more generous line in that field. These industries have been subjected to automatic full indexation of wages and for some time to the automatic indexation of excise which, together with increases in the price of fuel, have contributed significantly to their cost structure. We must never forget that the great Australian primary industry is one of the few industries that basically must compete on a world market. It does not enjoy the pleasant situation of being able to analyse its costs, look at the sort of percentage profit which is necessary, or look at its investments, interests and responsibilities, and come up with a price. It must accept the price that obtains on the world market. Consequently, it is a problem which is not specifically relevant to a range of other determinations in the Australian economy. The loss of tax deductibility in some fields is of great significance to rural Australia. It is important that we spend at least an hour or two tonight in the discussion of these industries because they have been rather unfortunately treated by the Australian Labor Party in recent times. About 3 1/2 lines were devoted to primary industry in the Budget Papers and I am informed that in the vicinity of six minutes was devoted to the discussion of primary industry during a week-long Australian Labor Party conference. That is not the sort of involvement or the depth of consideration that the industries deserve. I wish to indicate to the Senate that the Opposition proposes to move amendments to the second reading motions of four Bills. In respect of the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984 I will move: At end of motion, add ', but in relation to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the Board should be composed of: (i) a chairperson, who shall be a wheat grower at the time of his or her appointment, appointed by the Minister; (ii) two wheat growers from each of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, representing the wheat growers of their respective States; and (iii) not more than four other members appointed by the Minister because of their special skills or expertise in relation to the marketing of wheat; (b) all moneys standing to the credit of the Wheat Finance Fund should be paid to the Board as soon as practicable; and (c) in determining the price per tonne for standard white wheat for human consumption in Australia, the Minister should, in addition to the matters stated in sub-clause 32 (2), be required to consider any extra costs to the wheat industry in handling, storage and caretaking of wheat provided to the flour milling industry'. Some of those matters have been met, admittedly under pressure, by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in the amendments that he has ultimately agreed to make to this wheat marketing legislation. However, it is necessary to bring these matters to the attention of the Senate tonight because they are basic to the policy of the Opposition parties. I will refer to one or two of the elements within my amendment a little later. I foreshadow that I shall move the following amendment in relation to the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the legislation should not have been introduced until completion of an off-shore constitutional settlement between the Commonwealth and the States formalising areas of fisheries administration'. I turn to the Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984 in relation to which I foreshadow I will move the following amendment: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until early 1985 when the proposed changes to export inspection practices for dairy products are introduced'. Finally, I foreshadow the amendment that will be moved by Senator Boswell when he addresses himself to the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984. The amendment reads: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate calls upon the Government to implement a moratorium on charges for 2 years after the date upon which the legislation receives the Royal Assent'. I do not propose to talk about the Bills before the Senate-there are so many of them-in any sort of depth at all. I will confine my remarks basically to the Wheat Marketing Bill and the Meat Export Charge Bill with a brief reference to one or two of the others. I am sure that my comments on those Bills will be expanded upon by the distinguished honourable senators who will follow me in this debate tonight. The Australian Wheat Board has served the wheat industry extraordinarily well over many years. The Board was founded in 1939 and was the culmination of some years of virtual chaos in the wheat marketing industry. The 1930s and even before were years when the wheat industry was suffering from competition across the board between small entities, and it was suffering a price problem that was virtually untenable. It was becoming a non-viable industry in a country with all the great natural advantages which have made it today the most efficient per capita producer in its field in the world. As a result of those problems the Wheat Board was established. It has served growers extremely well. It has proved to be, as a grower-controlled umbrella, the marketing entity that is able to move around the world so seek appropriate markets and to enable the individual Australian farmer, perhaps ironically, to survive and prosper and to become, as I said earlier, the most efficient per capita wheat producer in the world today. Basically that is because, over and above his particular skills, his initiative and his invention, he is able to rely on a very specific and strong entity to serve him in the world market, which is tough and highly competitive. The wheat marketing plan which will come into being as a result of this legislation is an enormously important part of the five-year by five-year progress of the wheat industry. The five-year plan which is now coming to its conclusion was established in 1979 and nurtured under the ministership of Messrs Sinclair and Nixon. It has been an extraordinarily successful period of wheat marketing for the Australian industry, but that particular five-year period has come to an end and we are confronted with a new plan. There are a number of features in the new plan which we accept and adopt. There were two or three matters that concerned us very greatly. Indeed, it was the enormous reaction at the grass roots level in the industry, a reaction that saw literally thousands of people in meetings across New South Wales exhibiting very great concern about the future of their industry, plus pressure by the Opposition parties and the Democrats, that I believe caused the Minister involved to make certain changes to the legislation, or at least to leave things as they are until October 1985 when new legislation will again need to be brought down. That means that the structure of the Board will remain as it is. That is perhaps the most significant matter that concerned the tens of thousands of wheat growers in this country. That situation will remain as it is as a result of the Government's own amendments until October 1985. In the intervening period I understand that there will be an in-depth review of the wheat industry and out of that review no doubt recommendations will flow and the government of the day will have to establish the circumstances that are to pertain in the wheat stabilisation and marketing for the following five years. The guaranteed minimum price formula is part of these particular exercises and the new formula that has been introduced whilst not totally and absolutely accepted with open arms, at least is accepted as perhaps a reasonable and responsible approach to the problem. The new formula seeks to establish a price for wheat based on the estimated price in the current season and the two lowest of the preceding three seasons. The average of the three seasons will produce the base price. The actual payment will be 95 per cent-90 per cent in one payment and the balance, in this case, by 1 March. There will be a split payment for wheat in the 1984-85 harvest. Significantly, by the Minister seeking to leave the situation as it is until October 1985, the grower representation on the Board will be retained with a majority. The wheat growing industry has been concerned about this point ever since the beginning of the Board in 1939. It is not a situation that is pursued from a pigheaded desire to maintain a producer majority on the Board, it is a decision that relates to at least two things: Firstly, the producer has a very real contribution to make to the development of the Australian wheat industry. He has been not only a good cultivator, grower and producer of wheat, but also one of the great innovators. The Australian farmer has probably contributed more to the science of production, whether through machinery or through plant breeds, than almost anyone else in the world. The wheat farmer who seeks to have a majority on the Board has in fact contributed a very great deal to the efficiency of that industry and its importance to Australian agriculture. A second very significant reason why Australian wheatgrowers seek to maintain a majority on the Australian Wheat Board is that by so doing they maintain the difference between a nationalised and an individual dominated industry. The wheat industry sees that once the wheat grower is in the minority in the marketing of his product, he can be very simply nationalised and socialised. He is often accused of having moved towards a socialised situation. The umbrella of the wheat marketing industry has enabled the individual to survive. That matter concerns the Australian wheat industry a great deal. Unfortunately, the second repayment of the Wheat Finance Fund has been delayed until about the end of August 1985. That matter is of great concern to the Australian wheat industry. I hope that the Minister will look at the advisability of paying it much more quickly. The payment is due by 1 December 1984. The Fund is comprised totally of the wheat growers' own money. The wheat industry would like to know where those moneys are invested and what sort of interest they are earning. It would certainly prefer the moneys to be repaid promptly and not six to eight months later than they are due. It is my information that $100m of the money owed will not be paid until the end of August 1985. This Wheat Marketing Bill has come into the Senate very late indeed. Because it is so late it seems as though an element of blackmail was involved when the Minister sought to reduce the grower membership of the Board from a situation where the growers had a majority and virtually took the stance that, if he did not receive the legislation en bloc, if you like, there would be no legislation and no payment to growers. Of course, that is a circumstance which the Opposition or anybody with the interests of the wheat industry at heart could not stand by and observe. Consequently, in view of the extraordinarily widespread discontent and concern that was exhibited, both within the political parties of this Parliament and, more particularly, at grass roots level in the industry itself, we have avoided what could have been an extraordinarily unfortunate situation. Just for a moment I ought to remind the Senate of the significance of this great industry in the Australian circumstance. It produces something in excess of 10 per cent of Australia's total export earning capacity. It involves the employment of a very great number of people in primary industry across the board , indirectly and directly, running into literally hundreds of thousands of people. The success and development of primary industries, and the wheat industry in particular, are relevant to the success and development of the whole cross-section of the Australian community. Certainly the towns, villages and provincial cities have a lifestyle and a capacity that is relevant to the success or failure of Australia's basic primary industries. As I have said, the wheat industry has a number of problems that are not necessarily relevant to a whole range of other industries. For instance, it has very little protection indeed. It receives barely 30 per cent of the protection that is available to a whole range of other industries in this country. It competes daily on an open international market. It is not in a privileged position where it can establish a price and determine that that will be the price it gets. It has to contend with a whole range of imponderables-changes in climate, strange occurrences from time to time to soil structure and capacity, and pests and diseases; a whole range of measures that constantly affect primary industry in general and certainly the grain growing industry in particular. I have already mentioned the cost pressures that are forever present in the wheat industry in this country. They relate to wage structures; taxation and the enormity of freight charges. Although freight is not specifically a Commonwealth circumstance, it represents about one crop in every four being paid away in freight alone. If we add that to other tariff circumstances as they apply to harvesting machinery and so forth, it is easy to see the sorts of problems, cost -wise, that confront this industry. The review the Minister has indicated will take place between now and October of next year needs to be an in-depth review. Those who have the capacity to identify the problems of the industry and who are able to reveal them as they should be revealed should take part in that review. It is hoped that scientists, the National Farmers Federation and a whole range of other relevant people and institutions will be involved in bringing down recommendations for this industry . I think I mentioned before that the wheat industry has benefited enormously across the board from the contribution of science in the areas of fertilisers and particularly chemical agriculture. Likewise, the farming community has contributed to the development of machinery that is now exported and, indeed, to the development of moisture conservation and cultivation methods that are exported to many countries, in particular to the Middle East. I think it is unnecessary for me to speak in greater depth on the wheat industry. It has been made abundantly clear-at least I hope it has-that this industry has a very great contribution to make to the Australian economy. It is excellent that the Minister, under pressure, has seen fit at least to move forward the circumstances which apply to this legislation for decision in October 1985. By that time a committee of review will have reported and, hopefully, some responsible decisions will have been taken which will produce a stabilisation scheme and a marketing scheme under which the industry can continue. Other speakers will address the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984 and the whole range of Bills that are involved in this cognate debate. Before I formally move the amendment to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill, I inform the Senate that the other amendments I have foreshadowed in relation to the other Bills will be moved by other speakers. I therefore move: At end of motion, add ', but, in relation to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984, the Senate is of the opinion that- (a) the Board should be composed of: (i) a chairperson, who shall be a wheat grower at the time of his or her appointment, appointed by the Minister; (ii) two wheat growers from each of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, representing the wheat growers of their respective States; and (iii) not more than four other members appointed by the Minister because of their special skills or expertise in relation to the marketing of wheat; (b) all moneys standing to the credit of the Wheat Finance Fund should be paid to the Board as soon as practicable; and (c) in determining the price per tonne for standard white wheat for human consumption in Australia, the Minister should, in addition to the matters stated in sub-clause 32 (2), be required to consider any extra costs to the wheat industry in handling, storage and caretaking of wheat provided to the flour milling industry'. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.28) —We are debating cognately some 20 primary industry Bills. In the half hour allowed to debate the Bills it is obviously not possible to cover all the matters one would wish to raise about each of these areas. Some of the commodity areas we are dealing with are of importance to the entire national economy. Others are of a much more local economic value, but nevertheless they are of grave concern to individuals in those commodity areas and to the surrounding regional structures. I wish to go through each of the major areas, to make some brief comments and, in the Committee stage, to expand on those areas where they require it. I refer first of all to the Wheat Marketing Bill 1984. I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Government on the work that the Minister and his Department have done on this Bill. Long and detailed discussions have been held with various groups in the wheat industry. This Bill is a culmination of a great deal of work, discussion and co-operation between all sectors of wheat marketing. It is a radical breakthrough, a radical change, in the structures of wheat marketing. Now we have a much freer marketing operation than we have had for many years. It is something that certainly in recent years growers have been looking forward to and have been urging on successive governments. It is to the credit of the Labor Government that it has taken up the challenge and come forward with this Bill. I do not want my subsequent remarks on certain sections of the Bill to be taken as withdrawing in any way from the praise I would like to offer to the Minister for getting this Bill together, into the Parliament and through the Parliament in such a way as to receive almost unanimous support from within the industry. As is the case with almost any Bill that comes into this place which affects an industry the size of the wheat industry, there will be a number of factors with which the industry does not agree. One of those factors which did not have anything to do with the substance of the Bill was the composition of the Wheat Board. The composition of the Board that the Government had determined will take away from the growers effective control of that Board. This was a matter of concern to the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation and to the Australian Democrats. Since our policy was first formulated seven years ago it has been that there should always be grower control of commodity boards. Unfortunately this became a matter of some controversy in the House of Representatives. I think it is worth while briefly outlining what occurred. The Australian Wheatgrowers Federation approached both the Opposition parties and the Australian Democrats with a number of concerns, one of which was the composition of the Board. The Wheatgrowers Federation made it very clear that it wished the legislation dealing with the marketing arrangements to go through. But at the same time its policy was that the Board ought to remain under effective grower control. The number of grower representatives in each of the States being reduced from two to one and the additional expertise coming on to the Board would deny growers that effective control. The Federation put those two points to me at the meeting I had with it. There is obviously a dilemma there. I saw the Minister on this matter and suggested that one way we may be able to accommodate that approach and fit in what the Minister had already announced in the House of Representatives about a review on this matter would be to put off the changeover of the Board to a later time in the year and to have a sunset clause on that matter. Later that day the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation saw the Minister and reinforced the proposition that I, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, had put to the Minister. The Minister accepted that proposition and moved such amendments in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately in that circumstance, the Opposition parties sought to make a great deal of political play about the matter. I find that activity is not helpful in these types of negotiations. The negotiations are not ones about which one is trying to win a point. We are dealing with a very vital industry. It should not be one which is put in jeopardy-whether or not it be at election time-by people seeking to win cheap political points. I think it is poor that this occurred. I hope that when the review on this Bill takes place the propositions that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation is putting up and those that other interested parties will undoubtedly put up will show that the grower majority on that Board is not at a disadvantage. I accept the notion that we need additional expertise, but I do not see why that additional expertise necessarily has to be on the Board. I do not see why the Board cannot have access to that expertise in some other way. The Australian Democrats hope that that will be the outcome of the review. In any case, the Parliament will have a chance next year to debate that issue separately. I believe that it should have been a separate issue in the first place and I am glad to see that the Minister has changed the Bill to make it a separate issue and that we will debate that at some length and probably with some fervour in the next sittings of this Parliament. There were some subsidiary matters connected with the Board that were matters for State legislation. There were particular problems in my own State of Queensland and also in Western Australia because of the timing of the State Wheat Board elections. Those elections are relevant to this Bill because a person must be on a State Wheat Board before he can become a member of the Australian Wheat Board. In Queensland, the members are also by cognate legislation members of other boards, such as grain handling, silos, and the like . If the Bill had stood as it was originally introduced into the House of Representatives we would have a turnover, at least in my own State of Queensland , of the grower representative once every 18 months. Obviously that would have been a bad thing. It would have meant a lack of continuity which is required to represent each of the States adequately at that level. I am glad that the Minister and his Department have been able to sort out those problems as well. There are a couple of other matters but I would wish to leave those to a later stage. I move now to the dried vine fruits legislation. The substance of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill 1984 was introduced originally at the request of the Australian Dried Fruits Association. The Bill is an attempt by the Government to speed up the disbursement of equalisation payments when many of the people in the industry are in dire trouble. In the Minister's second reading speech he said: The Association is anxious that there should be no undue delays in disbursement of equalisation payments, especially when so many producers in the industry are in desperate financial straits. Almost certainly they are in desperate financial straits but it is odd that we have had to wait 18 months before seeing any activity in this area, particularly when industries along the Victoria-New South Wales border are being sold up by banks and many people are being forced into bankruptcy. The activity that has been taking place in this area is the reference to the Industries Assistance Commission and I believe that its report is questionable to a large extent. The particular point that I find questionable in the IAC's draft report-and it must be acknowledged that it is only a draft report-is that there seems very little attention paid to the integration between the dried vine fruits industry and the regional economies in which that industry sits. In many ways it seems that the IAC has plucked the industry out of the air and not taken cognisance of the fact that many communities are dependent on its viability. If one looks at the wider social effects that the IAC's recommendations undoubtedly would have, one could also be looking at downstream effects-for example, increased unemployment in those areas, increased payments in terms of social security costs which would be required on an ongoing basis and the social consequences of materially affecting the community welfare in an isolated regional economy, such as the ones that are typical in these growing areas. It is one of the items to which I hope the Industries Assistance Commission will pay much more attention in its final report on this matter. If we take into account downstream effects in the regional economies, we may very well find that the savings that might be made to consolidated revenue by following through some of the IAC's recommendations would be lost by payments out of consolidated revenue in other forms. The last point I mention on this matter is that dried vine fruits have traditionally been used in Australia as an alternative source of income in bad wine grape harvest years. With the wine tax, the possibilities of that occurring in future are likely to be fairly small. So the dried vine fruits industry has suffered a couple of blows this year-the IAC report, and the wine tax. The movement in this Bill will be useful. It is something for which the Association has been looking. The Australian Democrats will be supporting it. Senator Robert Ray —What will the Nationals do? They are not even here. Senator MACKLIN —We will find out. I shall be speaking at greater length in the Committee stage on the canned fruits Bills, when we propose to move a series of amendments relating to the corporation's existence. The legislation will put a corporation into existence and take it out of existence within a time frame that we believe is totally impossible. The time frame of the corporation under the Bill means that it will spend most of its time drawing up the corporation plan and wondering what will happen after the corporation disappears, instead of getting on with the very important job that is required of it at present. So I shall be moving a series of amendments in the Committee stage seeking to regularise and extend the existence of the corporation. In particular, we would seek to extend it from three years to five years, because that would give it at least two and possibly three years' work before it had to look at the winding down phase. That would be a reasonable situation. The second group of amendments, which have been circulated, deal with the Minister's authority over the corporation. In relation to the wheat legislation, I have already expressed the Australian Democrats' view about grower control on corporations. This is another corporation which would come under government control, and the Democrats will be moving amendments to try to rectify that situation. I come to the Meat Export Charge Bill 1984 and the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1984. Essentially, we are here dealing with an industry which has gone through very difficult times. Undoubtedly now the prices being gained in this area are some of the best that we have had for many a year, but there are still significant problems in the industry. The Government has, by and large , adopted the types of recommendations in the report presented to it by the Interim Inspection Policy Council, with one very significant and, I suggest, fatal disagreement-the moratorium on the export inspection charges. The proposition that the Council put up must be accepted as being the rational way in which to move forward in this area. That is, that one dissociates the costs in the abattoirs from the costs of export. The problem that we have had in the past is that we have been putting one cost on everyone, and so the pork producers, for example, 99 per cent of whose production is consumed by the domestic market, have nevertheless been paying a significant margin over and above that on the export inspection charges. Undoubtedly, that was a matter of inequitable payment. It is a payment which persisted under the previous Government. It is a payment which has stayed on until now. It is a payment which undoubtedly ought to be changed. The suggestion which the Interim Inspection Policy Council came up with, which the Government has adopted, was to separate these two charges. That is the rational solution to the problem. The difficulty is that the Interim Inspection Policy Council actually presented a package in regard to these costs. In its report it made some excellent points which I think bear repeating. This is really the hub of the point regarding inspection charges. I think it is something that this Government, like the previous Government, really has not grasped. The costs we are talking about in terms of the new charges proposed by the Government would amount to of the order of 2c a kilogram. A 2c a kilogram charge may not seem very much to most people in the community. Page 7 of the report gives the exact amount as follows: The added costs for export meat inspection are the equivalent of 1.89 cents/kg. Recently a large meat exporter in Australia lost an export consignment on fractions of a cent a kilogram. That is the fine balance that one is talking about in the export market. As the Interim Inspection Policy Council says: With profit margins of a fraction of a cent per kilogram, Australia's ability to compete in a very tight and competitive international market place is severely restricted by the export inspection charge which puts us at a distinct disadvantage compared with our major competitors, who either do not charge for inspection- a la a place, such as Canada-- or provide levels of assistance which counteract the effects of the charge. Our major competitors are the other major producers; for example, New Zealand, Argentina and, to a lesser extent in this commodity area, the European Economic Community. We are up against an extraordinarily tight export market. As I suggested in relation to the dried vine fruit area, we really have to do our sums very carefully. If we do not put on those charges we will provide our industry within the next two years-that is what we are talking about; a two-year moratorium-with an increased opportunity of penetration into export markets. Getting into the markets is the difficulty; holding them is not so difficult. Unless we become competitive with our competitors in this area we will lose consignment after consignment. The effect that that will have on Australia will be much more extensive than I think people in the cities and towns tend to realise, because it is on the basis of export of primary commodities that we are able to keep domestic food prices reasonable in this country. If we decide, as a matter of government policy, that we will have export incentives for manufacturing industry and export disincentives for primary industry I believe we are going about the matter in quite the wrong way. I maintain, as I maintained when we debated these Bills under the previous Government, that it is an economic absurdity to link recovery charges to the cost of the Export Inspection Service. There is absolutely no reason why the cost of the Export Inspection Service should bear any relationship to the export price. Hence there is no reason why it should bear any relationship to the profit margin that a producer can get. Theoretically there is absolutely no reason why the cost-even at a 50 per cent level of recovery-could not exceed the profit margin. They are two independent moving calculations. There is no reason why they should mesh. Unless we find a rational method, if we must persist in putting our producers at a disadvantage, of recovering export charges and unless those charges are linked in some way to profit margins, we are in cloud cuckoo land with regard to exports. We are not giving Australian producers a fair go. I am not the only person who thinks this is the case. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) believes it too. I wish to quote, using a transcript made from a tape, an answer that Mr Kerin gave to the Cattle Council of Australia on 5 September. It is quite a long answer but amongst other things he referred to the two-year moratorium and said: The recommendation that I didn't take to Cabinet was that there be a two year moratorium on the export component, or retrospectivity. Now, the word was getting 'round' that I had been rolled in Cabinet on that and I did confess in Tasmania that 'no, I wasn't rolled in Cabinet, I didn't take the recommendations forward', and I will go through the reasoning for that. The Minister in his answer explained how things go before Cabinet and then said: There was no way that they- that is the Cabinet- would wear a two year moratorium as well as this the saving would have been in the order of about $14m a year-$28m. The Cabinet submission went up in terms of consideration of the Budget overall. If I was to put up a proposition to save $ 14m I would have had to offset that within my primary industry budget and I could not find any place to offset the $14m. So there were those problems. So I quite happily admit it. It has become quite a tangle, quite a mess. It is a decision that I have to live with. I think people who say that this isn't really facilitating exports are perfectly correct. The Minister said that those people who say that this decision is not really facilitating exports are perfectly correct. Surely what we should be about in this Parliament in passing Bills of this type through the House is trying to facilitate exports, not trying to do the very opposite. Another Bill we are discussing cognately is the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill, which has been around on at least two prior occasions. It is becoming one of those hoary Bills that we discuss from time to time. It seeks essentially to validate payments that ought to have been made under the previous Bill before it was amended by this Parliament last year. In regard to this Bill, I am interested in seeking a response from the relevant Minister to this question: If this Bill is passed, as I assume it will be because I understand the National Party is going to vote for it, when will the relevant regulations come into operation? One of the things I find exceedingly galling is to receive regulations in the mail 15 sitting days after they have been promulgated. Thousands of regulations are promulgated, and I think it would not be a bad idea if on occasions we could actually receive them a little more promptly from the departments rather than having to wade through thousands of regulations in other places. I want to look at the regulations relevant to this Bill and that is why I seek to know specifically when it is proposed that they come into operation. The last Bills on which I have time to direct my comments are the egg Bills. It is interesting that the Government has introduced only three of these Bills at this stage. On 2 August the Minister for Primary Industry announced that the Commonwealth hen levy was to be phased out on 1 July 1987. We do not have any Bill in this package in relation to this levy. Presumably the reason is that such a Bill would be the only Bill amongst this package which would actually be objected to quite strongly by the industry. I will not go so far as to suggest that the Government might be chickening out on introducing that matter in the months before an election. The industry wants the Commonwealth hen levy to continue so that the very important market research which has been taking place can continue. It certainly would enable the industry to meet the Australia-wide marketing strategies which I believe are important in this area, particularly given the virtual collapse of our export market in eggs. The Australian Democrats believe that it is a reasonable proposition. Indeed, it is in line with the types of support that have remained in other Bills for research levies. I would be very interested to get a response from the Minister, either now or during the Committee stage on the egg Bills, as to what precisely the Government has in mind in terms of its phasing out operation and the market research strategies which must necessarily continue in this vital area. The other Bills which I am unable to comment on as I have run out of time concern dairy products and fishing. I hope to contribute to the debate on those Bills during the Committee stage. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.57) —I too would like to join this farce of speaking to 20 Bills at the one time. Senator Robert Ray —You are well qualified. Senator ARCHER —There are six wheat, one dried fruit, three canned fruits, two fisheries, two meat export, two dairy, three egg, and one livestock slaughter. Senator Robert Ray —And a partridge in a pear tree. Senator ARCHER —What a collection to look at all at once. It impresses me considerably to find that Senator Robert Ray is able to make such half-smart remarks because when I look at the list of speakers I find that there is not one Government speaker to speak on 20 Bills. This is most extraordinary treatment of the whole primary industry area. It is absolutely disgraceful that all these Bills should be brought into this chamber and be lumped together as one. It clearly shows the Government's attitude towards the primary industry sector. These industries produce $15 billion worth of produce a year. They export $9 billion worth of produce on world markets. Yet this is the sort of attention they get. It is just crazy that Bills concerning these industries which are now doing so much and have done so much for so many years for the development and prosperity of the country should be brought on at a time when we do not even have a reasonable opportunity to discuss them and when amendments to them will not be able to go through the House of Representatives. I find that to be beyond my comprehension. The way the Government claimed to have tidied up the rural industries by breaking the drought is quite remarkable. If we start to look at what the Government's claim in the rural industry is it does not come up quite so well. Rural industries are not one of the things that can be always tidied up just by a Sunday afternoon cricket match or something like that. Let us look at what the industries are doing and have done. Where do we stand at present with our meat exports? What are the wheat prospects for the coming year or two? What has happened with the sugar industry? What about live sheep, dried fruits, canned fruits, wood and timber products, dairy products, fish and berry fruits? I think it bears looking at whether the industries I have referred to are all so plump and healthy that they can be given another squeeze. It was only today that I noticed the report from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It may not interest members on the Government side, but rural Australia faces a slump this financial year with the real net value of rural products forecast to fall by 29 per cent. What would happen if we announced that wages were to come down by 29 per cent? Do honourable senators think that 20 Bills would be rushed through at one stage if that were the case? I just do not see how we can just brush this off and not even provide an opportunity for reasonable debate. The report states : Gross farm product, in constant 1979-80 prices, was expected to fall seven per cent- That is, gross farm product is down 7 per cent. It also states: Prospects for commodities other than winter grains had been revised downwards, especially for wool. So it goes on. But what about the costs? All this time, while the returns are coming down, the costs are going up. The costs that are going up are all domestic costs. It is all very well to suffer these increases in local costs but we are selling our products on world markets and the price that we can obtain has no relationship to what it is costing us to produce. In every case it is a further squeeze on what is left of the productive sector. We cannot run this country without a productive sector. We have this group of big spenders all around us who want to get out and spend money on all sorts of fancy things. But that money has to be made by somebody before it can be spent. When I look around the Government benches I am not quite sure who really understands anything about the private sector and the productive areas of the country. What about tax? What do Government senators know about tax except that it is money that they try to get from somebody else? They believe that farmers are all millionaires; so they rip it off them. What the Government takes in fees, it cannot get in tax. It is one thing or the other. There will be no development if the Government overtaxes. We have these assets taxes, discouragement taxes that prevent people from going ahead. Who is going to produce for the big spenders? The planned destruction of the productive sector of the country just simply cannot be allowed to proceed. The takers have got to the stage where they exceed the givers. The situation becomes quite frightening when one looks at primary industry incomes. How much lower can they be driven and still permit primary producers to survive? It is another example of the great destroyer at work, and doing a great job. Let us look at the costs of primary industry. For a start, we have the tax rate generally. The income equalisation deposit scheme has been destroyed. There has been the issue of the fuel excise and the export inspection slug. We should look at our relationship with our overseas trading partners. How do we get on now? Where do we stand in comparison with the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Japan, the Republic of Korea and those sorts of places? Whether the Government likes it or not, Australia's future is still tied to primary industry -to farming, fishing, forestry, mining and those sorts of industries. The whole future must start with productivity, not expenditure. The country can only survive if we find what there is to share and then share it equitably. The Government cannot give big handouts and then squeeze primary industry again. I would like members of the Government to consider those countries with which we trade and compare our treatment of primary industry. I wanted to know the comparable countries which tax their exports in the way the Government does and plan to do. I went to the Parliamentary Library and asked if it could help me with this. I think it appropriate that I mention the information I have been given. It states: In New Zealand almost the total cost of export inspection schemes is met by the Government. In relation to Canada, it is stated: As with N.Z., the Government is responsible for the cost of almost all export inspection services. The information I have states in respect of the United States of America: Details on export inspection scheme costs were procurable only in relation to meat. Unlike the current situation in Australia where the Federal Government has adopted a policy of recovering 50 per cent of the cost of export meat inspection , meat in the USA is inspected by Federal inspectors at no cost to either the farmer or exporter. What chance do our exporters have of competing when faced with this sort of nonsense? How can they be taxed when we are a high cost country and we try to compete with people who are not being taxed? The tax we are now facing is not imposed with any relativity to the cost of the product, the time taken to produce it, the ability of the industry to pay or the effect on the industry. It is just what someone decided to go for. Someone said: 'Let us try to get so much money'. If we do not keep the productive sector profitable we will not be able to trade. This is the point to which this Government is pushing us. I cannot understand-it has not been explained, although we might get an answer yet-why this Government insists on attacking the productive sector. Why does it attack the employers, the investors and the exporters? What benefits can there be in further attacking our overall competitiveness? The major costs in Australia are social and domestic. It matters little what the costs of housing, bread, insurance, dental work or bus fares are in Australia when they are paid for with money that is earned in Australia. However, the cost of producing the products we are talking about-the things that Australia depends on-is paid for in Australian dollars yet they derive income in overseas dollars. In this country we are still lavishly overpaying ourselves and providing benefits that we cannot afford. We are trying to place $9 billion worth of primary products on the world market as well as what we are trying to sell in manufactures, minerals and fuel. All we are doing is balloting ourselves out by building up our costs to this ridiculous level. I will speak to as many of the 20 Bills before us as I can. I am absolutely disgusted at being presented with a bundle of 20 Bills and expected to be able to speak to all of them in 30 minutes. I will deal with odd matters that arise out of various Bills. I will start at the top of the list and try to work right through. I raise one matter on the wheat Bills, that is the effect on Tasmanian industry of the wheat stabilisation freight scheme. It is as well to look at a little bit of history in this context. In 1939 it was decided for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was national security, that there should be wheat stabilisation prices in all the capital cities of Australia. This has worked very satisfactorily since 1939. It also has meant that in each State there has been an opportunity to establish various subsidiary industries, for example, flour millers, feed processors, starch manufacturers and paper millers besides pig and poultry producers. If it is decided that this situation is to be changed now, what happens to those industries established on the basis of what presumably were the Commonwealth Government's best interests and which have carried on for this long? What about the future development of these sorts of industries? In the last few years in Tasmania two new flour mills, one starch mill and five feed mills, as well as a whole range of intensive pig and poultry producing industries, have been established. To say that the freight arrangements are to be based on the freight from Portland or Geelong to Tasmania is absolutely ridiculous. We do not get anything like our wheat requirements from those areas. The wheat we require in Tasmania we have traditionally and habitually obtained from Newcastle. To say that we can get wheat from Geelong, which is unsuitable for any of the purposes for which we use wheat, is nonsense. It clearly shows how little input there has been from people who ought to know better. To say the scheme will be based on freight equalisation is a nonsense also. Firstly, it would require alterations to the scheme and, secondly, it would not change the problem that exists. To leave the situation in this sort of mess is quite intolerable to all the wheat users in Tasmania. I have had much contact with the various bakers, millers, pig and poultry producers, starch manufacturers and paper mills. The disruption that this would cause is just too great to be tolerated when no reason is given as to why the system should be changed, having been established since 1939. I turn now to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill. I suppose the dried vine fruits question is similar to the wheat stabilisation question. There is only one very good reason for there being a dried vine fruit industry in the Murray area, and that it that the Government set it up. The Government decided it was desirable to have that industry, and to have it in that area. It financed the industry and has run it and supported it, and the industry will not go away by trying to dry it off. There is an enormous world problem in dried vine fruits at the moment and in the United States alone 160,000 tonnes of seedless raisins are in store. We are already gathering cash securities on the Greek fruit coming in. My understanding is that last year 2,473 tonnes came from Greece and since then 601 tonnes came in June, 51 tonnes in July, but nothing in August as we were waiting to see whether or not we would win the countervailing duties case. A total of 250 tonnes has come in from the United States in the last two months. If we lose this countervailing duties case, we can expect a merciless flood of fruit to come in from overseas. There is a real viability crisis and while I support the purpose of this Bill it is very much a temporary measure. It is only a one-year measure. What do we do next year? We cannot advance payments any more . I appeal to the Government to let us know what it has in mind for the next year because it is getting to be a considerable problem now. Stepping up payments by a few months now will not overcome the real difficulty which will manifest itself in 12 months time. I fully appreciate the points raised by the previous speaker, Senator Macklin, about the canned fruits industry but the legislation will provide the main thing that the industry wants; that is, to get the season lined up. By changing the dates by just one month it will be possible to cover the apricot crop and ensure that one rate of levy will apply to the whole of the season and not be divided according to calendar years. I am pleased with most of the arrangements in the Fisheries Licences Collection Bill and the Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill, except that I believe they propose very much open-ended arrangements, and I am nervous about open-ended arrangements. The main problem we are dealing with is that we have this off- shore constitutional settlement problem with the States. For various philosophical reasons, we cannot seem to bring settlement to fruition. If we could just get ahead and sign this constitutional settlement I think the rest of the problems would be eased. We do not know the size of the levy, and it can be determined at any time at virtually any amount. Again we have to remember that if we are to impose levies on products, it is money that is not available for use by the industry in other ways. It cannot be used, for instance, in research and it cannot be used for upgrading equipment. Once it is spent on levies, it has gone for good. Who determines the cost and level of management practice? We talk about closely supervised fisheries being liable to be levied but who will determine what constitutes a closely supervised fishery is also a very loose arrangement. I fully approve the use of this means of levy where it is used following consensus and an industry request, such as was involved in the northern prawn buyback scheme. I congratulate that group of fishermen on its progressive view and also the Department of Primary Industry and its Minister for making it possible. Unfortunately, at present there is no active and positive national fishing body . It would certainly be the wish of most of the members of the industry that something positive should come out of the national fisheries conference in Canberra at the end of January next year. The suggestions put forward in the report on fishing by the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce would still appear to be the most satisfactory way of securing a working industry- government relationship. I notice that Mr Graham Stewart from Western Australia was recently in Launceston. He is the executive officer of the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council. He feels that the industry consultative panel is largely ineffective and that the Government bypasses that body when confronted with difficult or potentially embarrassing issues. While that sort of management scheme is in operation, one cannot hope to solve the problems that beset the industry. The industry must be in a position to play a progressive part in the development and management of the industry, as is the case with the other primary industries which we have been dealing in this debate. Inscribed on the tombstone of the meat industry will be the words: 'The Government wanted 50 per cent of the action'. That certainly appears to be the way things are heading. One honourable senator referred to a report on this subject that appeared in the Australian Financial Review under the headline ' Kerin agrees meat inspection charge isn't helping exporters'. That is a considerable understatement. Senator Peter Rae —Do you think it is reasonable for somebody to blame his Cabinet colleagues all the time? Senator ARCHER —His Cabinet colleagues probably worked it out with him. Senator Peter Rae —To pretend to be on side with all the producers in the rural sector. Senator ARCHER —I have heard the same gentleman say that he does not agree with some of the decisions made but it is not up to him. No doubt this decision is just another in that category. The Minister admitted ultimately that he did not even put the proposal for a moratorium to Cabinet. I believe that Cabinet would have accepted the logical conclusion. It is one of those cases in which we did not get consensus but a con. On the subject of meat inspection, it is often said by Labor members that the previous Government caused the difficulties by introducing the system. Let us examine the circumstances at the time these things happened. We must consider the ability of the industry to pay, the trade position, and our relative cost position. We must consider the value of the dollar now compared with what it was under the previous Government. We must also look at what has happened to wages. Have they risen or fallen since those days? What about the position in regard to tax, fuel, transport, interest, repairs, municipal charges, insurance, veterinary costs and similar factors? How much have those items risen or fallen? Where does the price of meat on the international market stand alongside those factors? Indeed, who in the present Labor Government would know anything about the subject? Even worse, who in that Government cares? What an extraordinary time to take a swipe at the meat industry. Meatworks are closing down around Australia all the time. We are putting men out of work in hundreds and thousands all around the country to try to prove some philosophical point. We have this group of market disasters to fight and now we find that even the export market development grants are under threat. Stock numbers are down and even if the price of stock is up, as has been referred to, if we multiply by lower numbers the result is still not very good. The cash recovery of the farmers is very slow. Government action will prevent any recovery and will prevent the farmers from becoming more profitable. I saw a newspaper cutting reporting the closure of a meatworks in Tasmania. The meatworks put off a hundred men. I did some arithmetic. This works closed because the inspection charge cost a quarter of a million dollars a year, for that one small meatworks. So 100 men were put off. On unemployment benefit, they get $150 a week. The Commonwealth Government is now paying $15,000 a week and is losing the tax on what was an average income of about $500 a week from those men . If honourable senators work out the arithmetic they will find that keeping the works closed for four months, 17 weeks, would more than cut out the $250,000 that the whole year's tax on export would have amounted to. I cannot see that this represents sound thinking, but it is typical Government thinking. How are we getting on with our Canada quotas? Where are we getting to in regard to meeting the European Economic Community markets? What about Japan, Korea and the EEC moving into all these areas that we have traditionally traded with. I saw in the newspaper that they said they were not going to move into Australia and one or two other places, but what about the areas where we are in business? With respect to inspectors, I was somewhat staggered today to find that the Victorian Department of Agriculture has an advertisement in today's newspaper for four meat inspectors. We could let it have the 200 we are paying at the moment. What frightens me is that these four positions are currently held by temporaries, I believe. Putting this advertisement in the newspaper in this way is one means of getting the temporaries on to the permanent staff before the Commonwealth is left to take them over and to pay them ad nauseam. We already have 200 inspectors too many. I would very much like to have some comment from Senator Grimes, who is enjoying the debate on that matter no end, before the debate concludes. I would still like to talk about the dairy legislation, the egg legislation and the export legislation, but there is not enough time. To try to deal with 20 Bills in 30 minutes is absolutely crazy. The Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill is not an extensive matter. The reference in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill covers it very adequately as follows: . . . for the purpose of reflecting changes to export inspection practices in relation to dairy products to be introduced towards the end of this year or early in 1985 . . . If honourable senators wish to go to the next stage, they can read what Senator Walsh said, namely: The changes will also allow charges to be set which reflect the differential inspection effort for each category of export establishment- whatever that means. If honourable members want to go further than that they can see what somebody in the Department, who appeared to work for Senator Gareth Evans for some time, said: . . . it is proposed to introduce substantial changes to export inspection that are designed to make better use of resources more closely attuned to industry needs- whatever that means. What comes out of it, of course, is that here we have this Bill to deal with dairy product inspection and the industry has no idea at all of what will be covered under that inspection. It does not know how it will be done, the size of the sample, or whether every product, every batch, every order will be inspected. It does not know whether it will cover domestic as well as export sales or whether the samples will be one kilogram, 10 kilograms or 25 kilograms. It does not know how it will get on with the loss of sequence in the stacking and packing of warehouses, and it now finds that the factories are to be graded in some way, on a very subjective basis, I would suggest, by somebody as to what sort of inspection will be necessary. I think it is quite inappropriate that we should be asked to rush through legislation of this sort when the industry itself and the Parliament have no idea how it will be administered, by whom, to what extent or at what cost. We still have this idea that we must collect 50 per cent of the cost whether or not it completely wipes out the industry. None of our main competitors do it. This matter is not a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator Peter Rae —I move: That Senator Archer be granted an extension of time of 10 minutes. I have moved this motion for an extension of time for Senator Archer to speak in relation to what is an amazingly large cross-section of Bills which are being dealt with cognately and in relation to which he has indicated he has other matters to which he wishes to refer. I think an extension of time of 10 minutes would not be unreasonable in light of the co-operation that the Opposition has given the Government in lumping all of these Bills together and in particular in view of Senator Archer's interest in the cross-section of Bills. Senator Grimes —I agree to that, but I point out that everyone else has been able to confine himself to half an hour. It is just because he is long-winded. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(10.27) —The dairy industry internationally is in trouble as it is in Australia, except that our costs are higher, our inputs are considerably more expensive than, for instance, those of New Zealand, Canada or the European Economic Community and we do not have the same back-up that they have to dispose of them. But we will still go ahead on this basis. I make some comments about the egg legislation. I believe it would be quite inappropriate at this stage if we were to pass the three egg Bills without one word of debate, as happened in the House of Representatives. I found it quite extraordinary that the passing of the Australian Egg Board, which had operated very diligently since 1946, did not even rate one word of debate in the other chamber. I think it would be quite inappropriate just to wipe it off without some comment of recognition. The Egg Board has not been without its problems over many years. There have been wild fluctuations in the prices and supplies and overseas market problems have always been there, but the Board, with all its imperfections, has achieved a considerable degree of stabilisation and ironed out many of the problems that have arisen from time to time. It went through a period when the changes in the breeding, feeding and management of poultry made a considerable difference to the way in which the industry worked. I believe that the Board deserves at least a mention at this time when we are just passing it out of existence. The other two egg Bills perpetuate the stupidity of placing taxes on products that we are really struggling to get into a niche in the world scene. The history of the Australian egg industry is built on the difficulties of meeting markets because of our high costs and low returns. As far as I am concerned, this legislation will ensure only that the status quo is totally maintained. I will speak for about one minute on the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill. Debate on this matter has been going on since May. I am unable to see why we should continue to place the jobs of so many people in jeopardy and how we have come to fall for newspaper comments about how good the Bill is for the farmers and how well off they are. Undoubtedly, the debate gave the Government the impression that it would be able to tax producers without a whimper. 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 CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.30) —I wish to raise on the adjournment tonight the plight of a young Western Australian who has been imprisoned or detained in Vietnam since last July. The comments I wish to make arise from representations I have received from the young man's father, a Mr Robert Flecker. I know that Mr Flecker has also made representations to other members of parliament and directly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I should mention that I have indicated to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place, that I would be raising this matter. I acknowledge the co-operation I have already had from his office with respect to this matter. I should also mention that in raising the matter tonight and in responding to the representations which I have received from Mr Flecker, there is no suggestion on Mr Flecker's part that he is dissatisfied with the efforts which have been made by staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He knows that they have been attending to this matter, but he is concerned that his son has been detained in Vietnam since 22 July 1984, and one can understand his very real concern. I should also mention that I know Mr Flecker, who is now a clinical psychologist. I do not know him well, but he was the guidance officer at the University of Western Australia when I was a student there in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Mr Flecker's son is Michael David Flecker. He is 22 years of age and he completed only this year a Bachelor of Civil Engineering at the University of Western Australia, where he obtained a first class honours degree. I am advised both by his father and by an academic from the university who has made representations that he is a young man of very fine character who has worked extremely hard to achieve a number of significant academic successes. I have mentioned that he got a degree with first class honours. He topped his year in 1980 and 1981. He obtained distinctions in all 11 units of study and obtained a whole series of prizes. He has a very impressive sporting record and he appears to be a young man of impeccable character and reputation. In common, I suppose, with many people who complete an arduous course of study, he decided to take some time off and, in common with a number of friends, decided that he would do so by engaging in some cruising yachting around the world. He was taken on as an unpaid crew member on a cruising yacht known as the So Fong which was sailing from Singapore to Hong Kong. That vessel was intercepted by Vietnamese authorities and the yacht's owner and skipper, an American citizen, and the others on board were taken to Can Tho, about 100 kilometres south of Ho Chi Minh City. The other personnel, two French women and two children, were released after being in custody for about nine weeks, but the skipper and Michael Flecker have continued to be held in detention. I am advised that they have not been able to contact one another and that Michael has been kept under close guard and with very restricted freedom of movement. No charge has yet been laid against him. He has been allowed one-only one-visit from an Australian consular representative. I understand that there were some difficulties in obtaining that visit on behalf of the consular representatives. I mention again, because the Attorney was not in the chamber when I mentioned it earlier, that there is no suggestion, in my bringing forward this matter, of any complaint about the way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs has endeavoured to act in this matter. The visit took place on 22 October and lasted somewhere between one and three-quarter hours and two hours. Apart from that visit he has been without contact with any non-Vietnamese since the commencement of his detention. I am told that the yacht was large and well equipped. Its gear included radar equipment and it was flying an American flag. It may be that the Vietnamese authorities are particularly sensitive about the matter because of that fact. They may also be concerned because Michael Flecker is a graduate engineer. They may have some concern about his activities. I can only say that on all the advice I have been given all that we have here is a young Australian who, after working extremely hard both at school and at university, is endeavouring to see a bit of the world in a fairly adventurous fashion and has most unfortunately fallen into this situation. I am advised that his degree is in civil engineering and, he has no expertise in electronics, surveillance equipment or anything of that sort which might give rise to concerns that he is other than what he appears to be. He is a keen yachtsman. He has sailed both on the river in Perth and on the ocean. He was hoping to obtain a lot of ocean yachting experience en route to America or Europe to look at various civil engineering projects and to decide whether he would take up employment or commence post-graduate studies in engineering. I mention all of those details because I am sure that all of us will appreciate the concern which is being felt by his father at the situation in which he finds himself. I think there has been on the part of the present Government a quite positive approach to the Vietnamese Government. The Australian Government has put forward views which I would have thought would have put it in a position to make strong representations to the Vietnamese on this sort of issue. I raise it in the hope that our concern will bring home to the Vietnamese representatives in Australia that this matter will be regarded seriously if it cannot be cleared up quickly. I also ask the Government to use its good offices in the best possible way to achieve the release of this young man from detention. Again, I acknowledge the efforts which have already been made departmentally, but I ask the Minister to bend both his mind and his efforts to seeing whether some additional action can be taken to make sure that Mr Flecker is able to regain his freedom. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.38) —I gave the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) notice that I proposed to raise this evening a Customs matter which has become known as the Sinclair affair. The matter concerns a number of companies in the textile and clothing industry which were involved in the importation of fabric through a company known as Sintex International Pty Ltd which apparently was owned and operated by a Mr Sinclair, who obtained a significant quota to bring in very large quantities of fabric from overseas. This is typical of the sort of problem which arises where the quota system is used to protect the domestic industry and control importation. It appears that Mr Sinclair, in acting for 27 Australian companies, used an embroidery by-law to clear goods through Customs. The embroidery by-law attracts the minimum rate of duty of 2 per cent. In fact, the textiles being imported were believed by the importers to be appropriately categorised as liable to a duty of 40 per cent. Mr Sinclair is alleged to have told the 27 companies that they were liable for a duty of 40 per cent. They paid Mr Sinclair, acting on their behalf to import the goods, a duty of 40 per cent on the value of the goods imported plus charges for Mr Sinclair's services in importing the goods and the use of his quota. The importers included a company called Kelvin Hack Fabrics Pty Ltd and another company called Robison Textiles Pty Ltd, which have affirmed too me that they paid these charges and duties. It appears that Sinclair never paid the duty that he had received from the importers and that the importers are now being pursued by the Australian Customs Service and the Department of Industry and Commerce to pay the duty which was required to be paid, plus a penalty. The total sum involved, I am informed, is between $2m and $3m, the assessment of which is not quite accurate because some of the figures are not known exactly. It appears that when the extent of this fraud was becoming apparent Mr Sinclair left the country in a hurry and the 27 importers were left lamenting. I understand that a number of the importers believe that there was either corruption or inefficiency in the Customs Service over this matter. The reason they asserted to me that they feared there was either corruption or inefficiency in the Customs Service-I am not asserting it; I am repeating assertions which have been made to me and which I have checked to the extent to which I believe it is reasonable to state it publicly in this chamber-is that detailed records of by-law entry must be kept and that, if this was done, Sinclair's operation would have had to have become apparent relatively quickly because the amount of fabric imported, tens of thousands of square metres, was obviously far more than could possibly, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, be used for embroidery purposes in Australia; the market just could not require that much. It appears that the matter had been going on for some three to five years without detection and that, when detection started to become apparent, somebody tipped off Sinclair who was able to flee the country. I am informed that it is well known that Mr Sinclair is in West Germany but that, although the Federal Police know he is there, no action has been taken by the Government to extradite him from West Germany or to take proceedings against him. The position now is that after some 18 months of investigation legal proceedings have been instituted to recover the duty paid and the penalty from the people who have already paid it to a man who exercised what appears to be a major fraud. Whilst it may be reasonable to say that they are responsible for their choice of a bad agent, one would hope that a government would be sympathetic in such a situation and take all possible action, because if the situation is as I believe it to be-that is, that beyond doubt Mr Sinclair, through his company Sintex International Pty Ltd, defrauded these importers, the Australian Customs Service and, therefore, Australia-it is unreasonable that people who acted in good faith to import the goods and who paid the duty to the agent should be expected to pay the duty again, certainly unless the Government for its part is clearly and apparently taking action to endeavour to locate the responsible person, to have action taken to extradite that person from the country to which he has escaped and to bring him back to face whatever allegations may be made against him in Australia. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is well aware of all of these facts. I understand that representations have been made to him repeatedly on behalf of the people involved, and these are a cross section of reputable businesses in Melbourne. It may be that there are some allegations against perhaps two or three of them, otherwise there is no suggestion that the remainder of them are other than honest traders who have been involved unwittingly and to their great detriment in a fraud upon them and upon the Australian Customs. Yet it is my understanding that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has refused to see them and refused to enable them to put their case to him. I have been asked whether I would state the facts in this Parliament and request formally that the Minister reconsiders any refusal to see them and in fact to discuss with their representatives what steps can be taken and what steps are being taken by the Government to endeavour to ensure that the real culprit in this matter is brought to justice and that those who have acted honestly are not made to suffer a double penalty. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.46) —I respond on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) simply to the matters raised earlier by Senator Chaney in relation to Michael David Flecker. I will draw Senator Chaney's remarks tonight to the Minister's attention and, no doubt, those remarks will be passed on to the Vietnamese authorities along with the other representations that are presently being made by the Australian Government . I acknowledge Senator Chaney's expression of support for the efforts that have been made by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the consular authorities in this matter so far. I simply want to put on record formally what the Government knows of this matter. It is as follows: On 22 July this year the motor yacht So Fong was detained by the Vietnamese authorities off the coast of Hau Giang Province, the southernmost province in Vietnam. The So Fong of United States of America registration was reportedly en route from the east coast of Thailand to Hong Kong, as Senator Chaney has said. It carried a crew of six, the captain, an American, the engineer, an Australian, Michael David Flecker, and four French nationals. The Vietnamese Foreign Ministry, when first notifying the Australian Embassy in Hanoi of the detention on 2 August, assured the Embassy that all personnel involved were being well treated. The Vietnamese authorities further advised that the vessel was within their territorial waters about eight miles off the coast and flying an American flag, again as Senator Chaney has said, at the time of its detention. The Vietnamese authorities subsequently advised the Australian Ambassador in Hanoi that the incident was under investigation. An official from the Australian Embassy in Hanoi visited Mr Flecker at Can Tho on 3 October for almost two hours. She passed on greetings from his family and brought back a letter to them. She reports that Mr Flecker looks well and is being well treated. The Embassy in Hanoi will continue to press for Mr Flecker's early release and to report to the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is in contact with his family in Australia. Pending release, the Embassy is seeking agreement to fortnightly visits and regular telephone communication. There are a number of levels of activity occurring in relation to this matter at the moment. It is the hope of everyone involved that it will reach an early and happy conclusion. I am sure Senator Chaney's remarks will assist in that cause tonight. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.50) —I wish to raise a matter which is urgent for reasons that I will show. It concerns the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. It is the perilous position of the Worawa Aboriginal boarding school in Victoria which is threatened with closure or being forced to leave its premises. I was informed this evening that there is to be a meeting tomorrow of representatives of that school with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, and perhaps representatives of Senator Ryan's Department. Those people are concerned that this matter should not be neglected, that the Parliament should know the situation and, moreover, that we might have some assurance from the Ministers as to the position. I have observed that there is no Minister in the Senate at this time. I regret that Senator Ryan, or someone else is not in this chamber to take note of these matters. I notice that the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, is back; so perhaps he will deal with the matter. As I understand the situation this evening , this position, which has been unresolved for some time, is likely to come to some finality tomorrow. The school in question is a private school supported by funding from the Government. That came about as a result of representations by me and other people to the Minister for Education earlier this year. I had the opportunity of going to the school earlier this year and discussing this matter with the council members and meeting the students. It is a small school in its second year with a little over 30 students at this stage. This is one of the most promising and hopeful signs of the extension of Aboriginal education in Victoria. The students and their parents are very keen to make a go of the school. They are poor people in the Frankston district where the school is situated. They face the possibility that the school may terminate or leave the district in which many of the parents live. As I have said, the school was in grave difficulty earlier this year because it did not have the current funding. That was overcome. The Department of Education solved it. The problem which was outstanding at that time and which is still unresolved, is the permanent position of the school. It had leased very suitable premises in Frankston from the Anglican Church which desired to sell the premises. The question was whether the Government, either through the two Ministries or some other source, would be able to afford to buy the land. There are reasonable premises on this land. Originally it was a Church of England Boys Society holiday place. It is not lavish accommodation but it is quite good. It has school classrooms and room for more classrooms to be brought on to the premises. It has a somewhat rough playing field. The parents and the members of the school council, who are predominantly Aboriginal people, were making it into a very suitable school for those children who, very often had had a very poor education in the normal schools. Some of them were from the Shepparton district, some of them from other country areas and others from the city. The children were obviously very bright but they were not learning the English language and were having great difficulty. They were attending school year after year but, because of their language difficulties in particular, were not able to participate fully in their education. This school is offering these children an immensely valuable opportunity. As the first and only Aboriginal school in Victoria, I understand that it is also offering an opportunity to be a forerunner in the training and education of young Aboriginal boys and girls. Therefore, its closure is a desperately important thing to avoid. Honourable senators will remember that, in the middle of this year, I circulated to them a request that they supply books to help the library of the school which was very inadequate and very small. I must say that the response was not overwhelming from honourable senators. I thank Senator Mason for the books which he and other charitable persons in Victoria gave to the school's library. I made representations earlier this year on the question of the purchase of the land. I knew that negotiations were going on both with the Department of Education and subsequently with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to see whether the money could be raised so the school could be preserved and continue to occupy its most suitable premises. Unfortunately those who contacted me this evening, who have to take part in the negotiations tomorrow, are not optimistic, from what they hear, that the Government has found the means of continuing to allow the school to occupy the premises. I think it will be a tragedy and a disgrace to us, as senators in the Parliament of this country, if we find that a valuable initiative such as this disappears because we are not able to find the funds. With all the millions of dollars that we can find for other things, here is an initiative in Victoria- which I think is a start in providing proper education for children of Aboriginal parents-which needs funding. I take what may be the last opportunity of making a plea to the Government not to turn down this proposal and force the school to close. I do not criticise the Anglican Church in any way because no doubt it wants to dispose of the land in question. I understand it is prepared to sell it at a price below the market value although it is quite a valuable site. The site is eminently suited for the purpose it is now serving. It obviously has the potential to enable a greatly extended school to be sited there. The school has the devoted attention of a number of teachers, some of whom have gone on leave from the Department of Education to spend a year or two helping. It also has the assistance of Aboriginal parents who help in the control of the children and who give them a family life in the school. I urge the Government not to abandon this strong plea for help to save the school. It ought to be carried on in the interests of maintaining the efforts which we should all be making to ensure that Aboriginal people have the same opportunities in life as others. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.57) —I am afraid I do not have knowledge, briefings or details of the matters raised tonight by Senator Peter Rae and Senator Missen. I will refer them to the relevant Ministers and get answers as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 929) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) Did twelve nations, including Australia, in June 1983 provide US$3.6m to the Thai Government to counter the problem of armed pirates in the Gulf of Thailand, and was a further US$2.7m provided one year later for the same purpose . (2) Were these funds expended to provide patrol boats, spotter planes, communications and computer equipment, together with funds to operate all these things. (3) Has there been some reduction in the rate of pirate attacks on refugee boats from Vietnam, over the last year, but more than half of these boats have been attacked in circumstances involving murder, rape and kidnapping. (4) Have pirate attacks on Vietnamese boats been prevented or observed, and have any of these attackers been imprisoned. (5) Is the Australian Government satisfied with the progress of the program, to which more than half a million dollars has been provided by Australia. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. On 16 July the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees began an anti-piracy program with the sponsorship of twelve countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America) with a budget of $US3.6m under the auspices of the Royal Thai Navy. The program was continued in the 1983-84 financial year with a budget of $US2. 7m. (2) Yes, among other things. (3) According to the UNHCR, in 1981, of 455 refugee boats arriving in Thailand, 352 or 77% had been attacked. In 1982, of 216 refugee boats, 140 or 65% were attacked, and in 1983, of 152 refugee boats, 80 or 52% were attacked. Although there has been an obvious reduction in the rate of pirate attacks, it is still more than 50% and most of these attacks involve murder, rape, or kidnapping, and often all three. (4) It is difficult for a third party (for example, the Royal Thai Navy) to observe or prevent an actual attack on a refugee boat, given the large area of the Gulf of Thailand, limited resources and the large number of boats in the region. The extent to which attacks have been prevented is a matter of conjecture, but the decline in the attack rate seems to indicate that the UNHCR's program and the Royal Thai Navy are having a useful impact in this direction. In March 1984, four Thai fishermen were charged with rape, abduction and robbery following an attack on a Vietnamese refugee boat in the Gulf of Thailand between 27 June and 3 July 1983. They were convicted and sentenced to eighteen years jail each, commuted to nine years after the they pleaded guilty on each count. (5) The Government is satisfied that all parties involved in the program to suppress piracy in the Gulf of Thailand are making efforts under sometimes difficult circumstances, and looks forward to further progress. (Question No. 1040) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Is any land currently being considered by the Defence Forces for acquisition in Queensland; if so, where and what areas of land are being considered. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following table shows the location and area of land currently being considered for acquisition on behalf of the Defence Force in Queensland. LAND BEING CONSIDERED FOR ACQUISITION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE FORCE IN QUEENSLAND Location Description Area Brisbane Land adjoining HMAS Moreton 0.8ha Amberley Land adjoining RAAF Base About 200ha have already been acquired. A further 500ha is yet to be acquired. Southport Army Reserve Depot site 2ha are to be acquired. Settlement is expected in November 1984. Rockhampton Army Reserve staging area 23.9ha are expected to be acquired in this financial year. Townsville Base entrance 0.4ha are expected to be acquired within the next few months. Townsville Possible alternate site to RAAF Clevedon About 660ha will be required. Acquisition is planned for 1987-88. The site has not yet been identified. Halifax Bay Air Weapons Range 20ha of the range have already been acquired. A further 60ha for which negotiations with the State Government are still underway, are planned for acquisition. Cabarlah Communication Station Buffer Zone Area yet to be determined. (Question No. 1139) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What appeal procedures will exist to determine licence entitlements for scallop fishing in Bass Strait and adjacent waters where fishermen can establish a history of fishing but have been refused licences for failing to fish during the time specified in 1983. (2) Will it be similar to the provisions laid down for southern trawl appeals. (3) How many applications have been rejected. (4) How many of those rejections have a previous history of fishing in the licence area. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Unsuccessful applicants for endorsement of their Commonwealth boat licence to allow for access to the Bass Strait Scallop Fishery may appeal in the first instance to a Commonwealth/State Review Group. Their applications may also be reviewed by the Minister for Primary Industry or the Secretary to the Department , and subsequently by the Administrative Appeal Tribunal if the applicant is dissatisfied with the previous decisions. In addition, a task force comprising representatives from industry and Commonwealth and State governments has been established to monitor implementation of management arrangements for the fishery and to consider options for longer term management. The task force has given high priority to addressing the issues raised by fishermen who claim rights of access to the fishery but who do not meet the current entry criteria. The task force recently submitted recommendations to governments designed to address the claims of fishermen who have been refused licences for failing to fish during 1983. These recommendations are under urgent consideration by Tasmania, Victoria and the Commonwealth. (2) The actual review procedures for the scallop fishery are similar to those proposed for the south eastern trawl fishery. (3) To date 16 applications for review of the refusal to grant an entitlement have been rejected. (4) From information supplied by the appellants, 9 of the 16 have a previous history of fishing for scallops in the proclaimed area of Bass Strait. (Question No. 1179) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 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 Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) Nil. All vehicles held by the Department of Social Security are hired from the Department of Administrative Services. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. (d) Not applicable. (e) Not applicable. (f) Not applicable. Senator Gareth Evans —On 29 May 1984 (Hansard, page 2007), Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that in November 1975 correspondence from the Right Honourable Gough Whitlam, addressed to the Queen, was intercepted in the mail room of the Department of Foreign Affairs? If that is so, will the Minister provide full details? Is it a fact that Mr Peter Henderson was the First Assistant Secretary in charge of the mail room at that time? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Senator Primmer's question has been referred to the Hon. Gough Whitlam for comment. Mr Whitlam can recall sending only one letter to the Queen in the period October/November 1975. That letter related to the revocation of Sir Colin Hannah's dormant commission as Administrator of the Commonwealth. Mr Whitlam signed the letter in Canberra on 20 October. It reached the Queen in time for her to act on it on 24 October and a public announcement was made on 26 October. It is evident that there was no delay in transmitting the letter from Canberra to London. In 1975 Mr Peter Henderson was the First Assistant Secretary in charge of the Management and Foreign Service Division of which the mail room formed a part. Senator Gareth Evans —On 7 June 1984 (Hansard, page 2755), Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why did the Department of Foreign Affairs not cable immediately to Ambassador Whitlam, the text of my question of 29 May, as is the usual procedure ? Is it a fact that Mr Whitlam learnt of that question relating to the interception of his mail by the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Queen in November 1975 from the media? Can the Minister indicate at what stage are the investigations into this matter? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following a search of bag schedules and other records for any evidence of a letter as referred to by Senator Primmer, the text of Senator Primmer's question was referred to Mr Whitlam by telegram on 30 May. A reporter from the Melbourne Truth telephoned Mr Whitlam's Secretary on 30 May . Mr Whitlam's Secretary told the reporter that she would ask for a copy of the parliamentary proceedings and she thanked him for bringing them to notice. Senator Primmer's question of 29 May has been replied to separately. Senator Gareth Evans —On 24 August 1984, (Hansard, page 361), Senator Crichton- Browne asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a question asked, I suspect two days ago (Hansard, 22 August 1984, page 128) by Senator Maguire in respect of whether or not the Australian Government had been invited to visit Nicaragua to observe the elections that are to take place there in November of this year, a question which is all the more relevant since in the last 24 hours all the Opposition coalition parties have been outlawed which of course means that they are denied access to the media. Inasmuch as those democratically elected Opposition parties have now been outlawed, their materials have been censored and they are no longer allowed to have political meetings or rallies, I ask: Was the Federal Australian Government invited to visit El Salvador to observe the elections there when President Buarte was elected? Did it accept that invitation? In the event that it did not accept that invitation, will it use the same guidelines and yardstick in making the determination and judgment as to whether it will participate in an observer capacity in the elections in Nicaragua? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government was invited by the Government of El Salvador to send observers to the first round of Presidential elections on 25 March. Australia declined the invitation. The Government supports free elections and the development of democratic institutions in El Salvador on the basis of national reconciliation and reform. However, the process of national reconciliation and reform had not, in the Government's view, reached a point where the elections could be fully representative. The Government welcomed the decision by the Nicaraguan Government to hold elections on 4 November for a President, a Vice-President and a constituent National Assembly. During the Foreign Minister's recent visit to Nicaragua he emphasised in all his discussions with the Sandinista Government that the provision of pluralism in the elections was a matter of central importance. He said that the Co-ordinadora Democratica, which includes the major opposition parties should be permitted to participate in the elections in order to provide for meaningful opposition. As to the electoral process itself, the Foreign Minister said he believed that if all the arrangements were implemented as the Supreme Electoral Council outlined them to him, then the process would be as fair as could be expected. There has been no approach to the Government by Nicaragua inviting Australia to send observers or to provide assistance for the elections.