Wednesday, 24 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 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 63 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 28 citizens), Grimes (from 30 citizens) and Robertson (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Inquiry 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 Senator Lewis (from 73 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We 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 effects 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 Senator MacGibbon (from 344 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore, the decision of the Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately enact laws to ban the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 20 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 Senators Chipp (from 15 citizens) and Mason (from eight 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 our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jack Evans (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 67 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; The presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of 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 MacGibbon (from 84 citizens) and Messner (from 194 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate agrees with the dissent by Senator Jessop and Senator Peter Rae attached to the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with approval the release of the Liberal and National Parties' social security policy, in particular: (i) its commitment to repeal the Hawke Labor Government's assets test and lump sum superannuation legislation, (ii) the restoration of the present system of income-tested and indexed pensions and a liberalisation of the income test for the Pensioner Health Benefit card, (iii) its encouragement of occupational superannuation and personal savings as the only practical means of reducing long-term demands on government revenue by the ageing of the population, and (iv) the fact that it would restore stability, security and predictability for those presently retired and those approaching retirement in contrast to the constant and savage attack they have been under from the Hawke Labor Government since its election; and (b) notes that, but for the action of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party, the assets test legislation would not have passed Parliament and would not be coming into force on 21 March 1985. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting the statement by Senator Ryan, the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the status of women, supporting the election of women to the national Parliament; and (b) noting that Mrs Kath Venn has a consistent record of strong support for moral values and social justice, calls on Senator Ryan to support Mrs Venn's candidature notwithstanding that some may consider this may constitute a 'kiss of death'. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls on the Leader and members for the Federal Opposition to display some genuine concern for pensioners by modifying their present campaign tactic of trying to extort the votes of elderly Australians by deliberately terrifying them; and (b) urges the Opposition to present its case against the assets test in a rational manner that will not cause unnecessary discomfort, fear and panic among the elderly for the dubious purpose of short-term political gain. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, recognising that security is the Government's prime responsibility, views with concern the refusal of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to answer questions raised by Senator Townley concerning Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on the night of Tuesday, 23 October 1984. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with approval the release of the Liberal and National parties' social security policy, in particular- (a) the introduction of a family choice rebate, a child care rebate and the commitment that sole parents will, through a combination of an extension to the sole parent's rebate and the child care rebate receive an equivalent benefit; (b) its commitment to continue to provide assistance to the range of child care centres and to provide additional subsidies to low income families and individuals with special needs; (c) its commitment to support needy families with children with special problems (particularly disabled children) with respite care for both short and long terms; (d) its commitment to institute a pilot study into the provision of privately owned and operated child care centres to establish their feasibility to provide services to low income and regionally deprived families; and (e) the thrust of the policy is to support families with children, thus putting Australians first and standing up for families. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Senator Chaney for his achievement of a one per cent poll rating amongst Liberal voters who had been asked who they preferred as Opposition Leader. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting, that- (a) during the life of the present Government there has been a decline in employment in agriculture, mining of metallic minerals, mining, manufacturing of basic metal products, transport and storage, road transport, communications, insurance and services to insurance; (b) preliminary seasonally adjusted September 1984 employment figures show an actual fall in the number of people with full-time jobs, compared with August 1984; (c) contained in those jobs claimed to be created by the Labor Government are 139,000 jobs in the public sector; and (d) figures for employment under job creation and wage subsidy schemes, which are included in the overall employment figures for the end of September 1984 show 91,007 people employed under- (i) the Community Employment Program (40,795), (ii) the adult Wage Subsidy Schemes (7,436), (iii) the Special Youth Employment and Training Program (21,614), and (iv) the Wages Pause Program (21,162), totalling 91,007; and condemns the Government for the misleading and cynical use of gross figures which seek to give the impression of a strong growth in employment during and as a result of its term of office. The PRESIDENT —Order! As the President, I express some concern about the way in which notices of motion are being given, because it appears to me that some are being made up on the spur of the moment. It is the rule that senators should hand in a copy of the notices of motion that they have given. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate reminds the Labor Government of its failure to proceed with its commitment to national uniform land rights legislation. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Attorney-General, (Senator Gareth Evans), on advice from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), for attempting to 'heavy' the Human Rights Commission in its choice of academics to undertake certain studies. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate of 6 September 1984, which in part relates to the release of evidence and documents of Senate committees that are 10 years old and more, I report to the Senate that I have authorised the release of the transcripts of evidence of the Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians to Dr F. M. Cain, Faculty of Military Studies, Royal Military College, Duntroon. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Sibraa, I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E, and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. [COGNATE BILLS: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1984-85 APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1983-84] Debate resumed from 23 October, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.13) —At the adjournment of the debate last night I was discussing, or was about to discuss, a number of ways in which the Labor Government has reneged on various promises it made to the electorate, not least to families with dependent children. In the time available to me this morning, I shall seek to canvass a number of those areas. Anybody who passes even the most cursory glance at the 1984-85 Budget emanating from the Labor Government will be aware that the Government, intentionally or not, is making families with dependent children the new poor in Australia. The 1984-85 Budget made no real attempt to address the problems of families. Family allowances were not increased, families of unemployed breadwinners are still not eligible for rental supplements, and the unemployed have been sidelined with more short term bandaids under the community employment program. There is no evidence of any strategy to develop long term jobs and to create new skills and work opportunities where jobs are lost through automation, and there is no attempt to direct absolutely assistance to families with dependent children. When the Australian Council of Social Service made these points rather strongly through the newspapers, with the help of the Brotherhood of St Laurence , the response of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was to launch into a vicious personal attack on ACOSS staff. The Council had no right of reply, and not only was the Prime Minister's credibility questioned by his attack, but his rationale in so doing was also called into question. Mr Hawke decided that, instead of answering the criticisms of ACOSS, he would intimidate the people who fight for Australian families and who attempt to get people such as the Prime Minister to address the mounting problems of the three million Australians who are below the poverty line in a better way than was sought to be done in the 1984 Budget. He decided deliberately and cynically not to do this. Instead, he took the tack that the poor should continue to be sacrificed to what is known as the trickle down theory; that is, the argument that if the rich are well off some of the benefits will ultimately flow to those who are in need. The reality, of course, is that those who are without will continue to miss out on the things that they need. To maintain the accord among the haves, the Prime Minister's 1984 Budget contained a number of significant anomalies. For example, a tax cut of $2.79 a week was provided to people with an income of $100,000. That compares rather poorly with the fact that pensions were increased by a mere $2.50 and the fact that we still have three-quarters of a million children in families living below the poverty line. I think the most cynical move undertaken by the Government in this Budget was its deliberate decision to implement across the board tax cuts in lieu of directing more useful assistance to families with dependent children. The Government set aside $1 billion for across the board tax cuts. In doing that it said it was skewing them-indeed, it did skew them-to those on the lowest incomes . The maximum tax cut that goes to a taxpayer is of the order of $7.60 a week. That works out to a saving of $390-odd a year to a family with a single bread winner and two dependent children. Had that $1 billion been spent on increasing family allowances, family allowances would have doubled and that same family with a single breadwinner and two dependent children would have benefited by an increase of $55 a month or $660 a year. In addition, of course, there would have been the benefit accruing from the fact that rather than the small amount of $7- odd appearing on a weekly basis in the pay packet of somebody who, wittingly or not, could fritter it away on small things such as an extra couple of packets of cigarettes or a few extra cans of beer after work with the boys, the $55 coming in a lump sum each month, generally to the mother, would have gone directly to assisting the needs of the children in that family. But the Government chose not to do it. It chose to placate the unions, to keep big business happy and to sacrifice people on low incomes and, in particular, families with dependent children. Mind you, Mr President, the policies on families as announced by the Liberal Party Opposition are not any big deal for that group of people either. They do not address the needs of low to middle income earners. The major elements in the Opposition's policy that I have been able to work out are related to the dependent spouse rebate, on which it always has placed a great emphasis, and on income splitting-something that the Liberal Party drags out only when it is in opposition. Both the dependent spouse rebate and the concept of income splitting assist more people on middle to high incomes than people on low incomes. All studies done by the Institute of Family Studies and others indicate that empirically this is not in doubt. Most of the money for the dependent spouse rebate, for example, goes to people on greater than average weekly earnings. The dependent spouse rebate is of very little help to people on low incomes simply because in the majority of cases both spouses have to work and therefore do not qualify for the rebate. Of course, the rebate does not help at all people who are bringing up children single handedly because they do not have a spouse for whom to claim it either. It would appear then that as far as the Opposition's policies on families are concerned, low income families with dependent children will have nothing to gain and their situation will not be improved any more than it would be by Australian Labor Party policies. Labor's reneging on its policies in respect of low income earners is not the only way in which families with children have been affected by the Labor Government in the last 18 months. There is not enough funding for assistance for families in emotional or psychological need any more than there is for families in financial need. There is not enough money apparently for a sufficient number of counsellors in the family law courts. There certainly does not seem to be enough money to provide an adequate number of judges so that the business of those courts can be dealt with in a reasonably short space of time. Funding for emergency shelters and services for women and children is patently inadequate. In my State of South Australia the staff of at least one women's shelter is feeling particularly insecure. Staff members have only ever been paid correctly this year. They have no access to a superannuation scheme and no real job security. I have been informed that in Tasmania, the State from which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) comes, between lack of Federal funding and lack of interest by the State Liberal Government, there is no women' s advisory service, no crisis care service for rape or domestic violence, no ground floor or shopfront women's information service which at least even Queensland has, no working women's centre, no women's health centre, no women's telephone information service and no migrant women's centre. In addition, Tasmania has inadequate child care services and outdated laws regarding rape, sexual offences and domestic violence. Indeed, the only thing that Tasmania does have, which is the Women's Place, looks like dissolving into a little heap some time in October because it is then that community employment program funding will run out. This Government has done nothing to keep its promises to women, children and people in need. This is not the only area in which this Labor Government has shown its true colours. A lot of us thought that the Fraser Government would have to take the prize for lack of commitment to research and development, particularly in the areas of science and technology. However, recent information regarding Government funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, for example, indicates that the Labor Government could soon be taking that guernsey away from it. Senator Mason has already expressed the Australian Democrats' concern about Budget cuts in respect of the CSIRO. Following those cuts there was a report in the Australian newspaper suggesting that the CSIRO will have to close some of its areas of research. The report stated: The Government, as it has already made clear to the universities, no longer intends to be the main funder of research, and other sources of support must be found. Instead of crying out for more money, the organisation- that is the CSIRO- should approach industry for funding for specific projects. Already the agricultural and mining sectors provide the organisation with $40m of specific research-linked funding. Why doesn't the CSIRO go out to manufacturing industry for a similar amount to fund projects the sector really needs? The article continued: Many also see the Budget cuts as the only thing that will force the CSIRO to make some hard decisions-not just to prune some research programs but to make far reaching decisions on its future direction. Instead of piecemeal cuts across all areas it is a chance to actually close down whole research programs and even entire divisions. That statement was made as if closing down whole research programs and even entire divisions is something praiseworthy or to be desired. In fact, in many areas it is unrealistic to do so. The reasons or rationalisations for this argument, varied though they are, are often quite impractical. For example, the areas that have been specified for cutbacks or closure include the Centre for Irrigation Research, and the Fisheries Research, Radiophysics and Human Nutrition Divisions and various reasons have been proposed for axing them. Among the more impractical was the axing of the radio astronomy area. No university can bear the burden of manning a $25m telescope without government assistance. Similarly, deep water fishing research is a matter solely, if the Senate will pardon the pun, for the Federal Government and not for States. The Democrats are particularly concerned-I know that this concern is shared by the scientists involved-at the suggestion regarding human nutrition. The argument has been put forward that this is well outside the CSIRO's normal field . On the basis of that argument CSIRO would never have moved into computing research or any other high technology area and would still be basically a primary industry research organisation; and I suggest, with respect, that some of the excellent work that has come out of CSIRO outside those areas would not have been done and would have been sorely missed. Moreover, the article in the Australian and the Government's attitude completely ignore the fact that the CSIRO Division of Human Nutrition has recently had an extremely favourable review by an independent committee containing two overseas authorities and two Australian professors. They will obviously be disappointed to learn, having put out that review, that the Government is going to cut back one of the most effective areas in CSIRO. I would have thought that with a government that proclaimed its commitment to research and development and to the needs of human beings the cutting back of funding in the human nutrition area would have been outside- Senator Button —The Government has not done that. Senator HAINES —Certainly there are fears in CSIRO and in the community generally that Human Nutrition will be one of the areas to have its funding cut, and I am pleased to hear what the Minister had to say on that. Certainly that area has suffered from lack of funding in the past, as was evident from the fact that one section of the Human Nutrition Division in CSIRO had to apply to the United States for funding to entertain some research on trace element deprivation in isolated Aboriginal children. Finally, I come to preventative health care and non-traditional medicine, something which interests a large number of people in this country. The British Medical Association has recently published the results of a five-year study on nutritional control of migraines in children. The BMA, like the Australian Medical Association, is hardly one of the more trendy organisations and if it argues that certain illnesses can be controlled by the correct intake of food I think we have to listen to it. At the end of that five-year study it worked out a quite comprehensive list of the sorts of foods that children, that is, people under the age of 16, should not consume if they are migraine sufferers or tend in any way to the symptoms that a migraine sufferer has. We know too that dietary control for children who are hyperactive can be of tremendous assistance to them. One wonders why, then, the Government and the previous Government for years and under a succession of Ministers for Health have tried to sweep under the carpet the status of orthomolecular medicine, which is really only an extension of dietary control of certain illnesses. In one more prominent area it concerns psychiatric disturbances and the way in which these can be mitigated, if not cured, by proper attention to diet. What seems to be worrying governments of one sort or another is that before these sorts of dietary controls can be put into place a number of pathology tests have to be done, and governments of all persuasions over the last few years have gone into spasms over the cost of pathology testing and screening for other illnesses, including, extraordinarily enough, breast cancer. A number of medical practitioners in this country who practise orthomolecular medicine have been attempting to get from governments a definition of what governments and in particular the Commonwealth Department of Health see orthomolecular medicine as being. They need that definition if they are to be able adequately to combat the hurdles that the Commonwealth Department of Health and the governments are throwing up in the way of development in this area. The debate has been going on since at least 1980 and we seem to be no further advanced in accepting this as at least a potentially valuable contribution to the health care of the nation. This is not withstanding that orthomolecular medicine has the support of no less a personage than Dr Linus Pauling, a twice winner of the Nobel Prize and a pioneer in orthomolecular research. Senator Cook —He is a great man. Senator HAINES —He is a very great man. His opinion is not one to be shrugged aside lightly. I recall writing to the Minister for Health earlier this year complaining about the treatment that proponents of orthomolecular medicine were receiving. I cited another great man, Dr Semmelweis, who, a hundred or so years ago, was rendered insane by the treatment his more traditional colleagues gave him when he made the 'outrageous' suggestion that diseases were not passed on by a miasma which passed over a particular hospital but by medical practitioners and surgeons in particular moving from patient to patient carrying the infection with them. Whilst nobody needs to support every piece of quackery or odd innovation that appears in the health field, at least we should remember the past and look with some concern, interest and certainly an open mind, at areas of medicine outside the drug related areas which may well assist the health of all Australians. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.32) —The Senate is debating the Appropriation Bills following the Budget. I refer to the October report of the Syntec research team which in the past seems to have had some association with the Federal Treasury. I do not know whether it is friendship but it seems to have some sort of leadership arrangements with the Treasury because, it having reported on certain matters, frequently the Treasury comes out with the same sorts of reports. What a devastating report Syntec came out with for October. Let me quote three parts of it. The first part states: The first step to re-building our business investment base should be supplementary Budget measures next Autumn to cut the structural Budget deficit. That is what Syntec thinks. In other words, there should be a mini-Budget in the autumn. Does anyone doubt that there will, in fact, be a mini-Budget in the autumn? Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —There has to be for all the new taxes. Senator LEWIS —Of course there will have to be. The aggregate deficit that this Government has come up with in its first two years of office is $14.7 billion. How can the country continue to stagger under the weight of such a deficit? Of course it cannot continue to stagger along in that way and something will have to be done. Clearly, what must be in the minds of members of the Cabinet at the moment is the introduction of new taxes in a mini-Budget next autumn in order to cut the structural deficit to a reasonable figure. Let me quote the second part of Syntec: The Government's manipulation of money market interest rates through recent weeks is the antithesis of what is required to get a major and sustained cut in yields here. The Government has been manipulating the money market in order to keep interest rates down until the election is over. Syntec continues: The August/September decline in rates was contrived by pumping up the cash base of the system to a point which has put this year's money target in jeopardy. This year's money target has blown out beyond all reasonable possibilities. I think the Government was looking at M3 at about 10 per cent or 9 per cent. In fact, it is already up around 13 per cent and the Government has broadened the definition to a money base which is now up around about 22.3 per cent. The money target of this Government has been absolutely abandoned in its rush to an election. Why is it rushing to an election? Because clearly it sees that there are major difficulties ahead with the economy and it wants to have an election while the economy appears to be reasonable to those people who are not applying their minds to it. In relation to the money supply, Syntec stated: To bring money back into the target zone, further tightening is now inevitable. We presume it will await the election. The economy of this nation will be held up, the proper administration of the economy of this country will be held up until after the election or perhaps the end of November when some moves could be made in anticipation of the election, but it will not become visible to the people out there. Let me quote the third point made in the October edition of Syntec: The longer-termed attractiveness of this economy is in the balance. Investors should await 1985 . . . It goes on to suggest some tests that investors should apply in 1985 to see whether they should invest in Australia. Why is the economy a disaster? The economic maladministration of this Government has put this nation into the situation it is at present. This Government had a glorious opportunity. The drought recovery and recovery from the world recession put the Government in a situation-we had waited for years under the Fraser Government for this to happen but it happened under this Government-in which at last there was an increase in the revenue, an increase in the taxation base and the opportunity for the Government at last to take some major economic decisions which should have been taken and had to be taken but could not be taken while there was a drought and a world recession. The Government got its opportunity in its first year to take these major decisions and it not only fluffed them, it has made them worse, it has exacerbated the problem by expanding its expenditure in areas where it has been totally unnecessary. I am certain that this is one matter that this Government will live to regret. When the back benchers apply their minds next year or the year after, if this Government is re-elected, to what could have been done in 1983-84, they will rue this day and the Cabinet Ministers will be blamed repeatedly for the mistakes they have made just as, I might say, our back bench blamed our Government for not taking the steps in 1976 and again in 1977 that the Fraser Government could have taken and did not take. I say to those Labor senators who happen to be listening to me at present that in future years if they get re-elected they will look back upon 1983-84 and they will say: 'But why did we not take that step? Why did the Treasurer not do those things? Why did the Prime Minister allow this Government to waste away these opportunities that became available as a result of the ending of the drought and the ending of the world recession'? Public debt in 1984-85 is estimated to be $90 billion. That involves an average interest bill for every taxpayer of $34 per week. Just think about that. Every taxpayer in this land is paying, on an average, $34 per week just to meet the interest on the national debt. Is that not outrageous? How can the Government continue to allow that national debt to expand at the rate that it is without taking some action to curtail it in some way? What has happened to the budgetary reform measures that the Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, announced as recently as October last year? He told us that the Government would issue financial impact statements with all its proposals. He said that the Government was 'taking this action because it believes the community has the right to know the financial and economic effects of government policies and programs'. Of course we have the right to know the financial and economic effects of government policies and programs. But what has happened? Instead of getting all these financial impact statements we managed to get one. We got only one financial impact statement because the Senate refused to pass the legislation until the Government gave it to us. When we got that statement it was a miserable effort. Mr Dawkins also said in October: It is especially important that we . . . provide them with information such as will permit real debate and the achievement of consensus about economic policy. When has that happened? When has there been real debate to give us a chance to come to some consensus about economic policy? Not at all. This Government has been involved in sneer and smear. Let me quote what Mr Keating said on 22 August this year: The dishonest, shabby, tawdry proposal- that was a proposal introduced in the House of Representatives by the Opposition - introduced 15 minutes ago does not deserve careful consideration. That is the sort of sneer and smear which Labor Ministers have brought into this Parliament and which has brought about similar retorts from our side resulting in chaos in the debates. The Liberal Party of Australia represents a wide spectrum of people. I might say that the people we represent were acknowledged in the Labor Party's own campaign as being concerned about the nation; putting the nation before themselves. Those are the people we represent. The Labor Party , at its campaign opening, said: 'We are going out after the traditional Liberal voter, the person who puts Australia first'. Those are the people we represent; the people who put Australia first. We represent the small businessman, the largest employers of the nation. We represent the pensioners, that large majority of thrifty Australians who are now being penalised for their thrift by loss of their age or service pension. We represent the single income family which is now at least 7 per cent worse off as a result of spouse and children allowances not being indexed, and we care about the ordinary people of this land who need help. The Labor Government, in this Budget, has displayed its lack of interest in the small man and woman and its lack of care for ordinary people who need help. The Labor Government is interested only in big unions, big business and big government. In this Budget small business has been penalised, the family has been penalised, pensioners have been penalised, people with early retiring ages have been penalised, and science and technology has been penalised. There has been no attempt to encourage excellence. This Government is hellbent on mediocrity, averaging incomes and socialism by stealth. The rhetoric in the delivery of this Budget alleged support for the ordinary person, but the reality of the Budget was support for big business, big unions and big government. Look at the accord. It is an unholy alliance between these three bigs. The Westpac Banking Corporation Review of September 1984 had this to say about the accord: As it stands, the accord is all about keeping happy the 91 per cent of the labour force which has jobs. It does nothing to alleviate unemployment. . . . Centralised wage indexation is the core of the accord. It is a system which virtually institutionalises unacceptable high rates of unemployment among the group which has suffered most, those between the ages of 15 and 19, one quarter of whom do not have a job. It is not my saying that, Mr Deputy President, it is the Westpac Review for September 1984. This Government seems to be developing the corporate state. It is coming to its decisions in cahoots with the trade union movement and with some representatives, which it has appointed, of big business. I warn Australians to be wary of it. That was the path that Mussolini took with his famous concordat which bears great similarity to the accord. That was back in the 1920s, and look at the disaster there. Let me quote from Maximilian Walsh writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 8 October this year. He said: If the existing industrial movement gains the sort of policy input in this area which it is attempting to do then the spectre of state corporatism really begins to take on substance. Such corporatism where big government, big business and big unions combine to protect what they perceive as the comfort of the status quo was a feature of Mussolini's Italy and Peron's Argentina-both, incidentally charismatic regimes. In other words it is an economic system which has profound social implications. Sounds far-fetched? We live in dangerous times. Part of this accord involves the removal of the sanctions imposed for secondary boycotts and that will come up for debate later today. I hope with the support of the Australian Democrats that part of the accord will not be achieved. If it were achieved, the result would be that militant action, by these trade unions in regard to secondary boycotts, would be subject to no sanctions. I ask the Senate to compare that with the draconian powers exercised by Dr Blewett under Medicare legislation, where he recently used his powers effectively to deny a doctor the right to practice for three years for filling in a wrong Medicare form or a number of Medicare forms. Senator Townley —That could happen by accident. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Townley says, it could happen to anyone. It could certainly happen to pensioners around Australia when they get hold of these forms that the Government is sending them at present to complete. There will be great difficulties in completing those forms, as Mr Goodluck said yesterday. When one considers the outrageous legislation brought down by Mr Wran in New South Wales, when doctors in his State refused to be socialised and to take employment under his Government, which penalised them for acting independently, it should be condemned by one and all. But of course Labor Party leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that they support government by punishment unless, of course, we are dealing with the militant trade union movement. Small businesses, the most efficient, innovative and, as I said, the largest employer in the nation, have been virtually neglected in this Budget. Yet charges in the private sector during the past year rose by only 5.1 per cent compared with public sector increases of 11.6 per cent. So the inflation we had during this time of rising revenue, the recovery from the drought, the recovery from the world recession, was in most cases brought about by government action. The Australian Postal Commission is currently seeking yet another rise in its charges for the lack of service which it provides to this nation. High public sector increases were-I have some figures here-taxes on cigarettes and tobacco, a 20.3 per cent rise; public transport, 13.2 per cent; automotive fuels, 16 per cent; alcoholic beverages, 10 per cent; postal and telephone charges, 9.8 per cent; and government owned dwelling rents, 9.4 per cent. The automatic indexing of many government charges is one of the major factors contributing to the continuing inflationary pressures. The only real growth seen outside the Public Service has been in the building industry. This has not only been patchy but also was mainly brought about by huge government expenditure. Some years ago the manufacturing industry absorbed 28 per cent of all those employed in Australia. It now absorbs only 17 per cent, and that figure is continuing to fall. Investment in manufacturing has declined by more than 30 per cent. We now have before us the estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which indicate that this year revenue from primary industry will fall by 29 per cent. Let us look at this Government's claims about creating jobs. Some 130,000, or 65 per cent, of the jobs created were in the public sector. We must face the fact that every two years Australia's population grows by about 450,000 at the current rate, so the creation of only 200,000 jobs explains why the job participation rate has fallen from 61.2 per cent to 60.5 per cent. So despite Government claims, there is a chronic and growing unemployment rate. Recently we heard discussion about a projected unemployment rate of 25 per cent across the board by 1990. Senator Townley —Terrible. Senator LEWIS —It is absolutely disgraceful that anyone is even considering an unemployment rate of 25 per cent. What do we see this Government doing about unemployment? Where will this massive public deficit end up? Where will this economic mismanagement, with an unemployment rate of 25 per cent across the board, end up? Public sector employment per hundred of population has now reached 9.83 in Australia, compared with 6.22 in Canada, 7.77 in the United States and 5.46 in the Netherlands. In Australia the figure is continuing to grow in areas that are not essential. Let me give an example. A month or so ago I was looking through the newspapers and I saw an advertisement for the Department of Transport which stated: The Department of Transport is seeking greater awareness of the Federal Government's initiatives in road, rail and sea transport. If one thinks about the way in which that advertisement has been phrased one realises that it has been prepared by a journalist who is allowing people to understand what it is all about if they read it in detail but is not making it too public for those who just browse through the newspaper. The advertisement seeks greater awareness of the Federal Government's initiatives in road, rail and sea transport. Of course, what it means is that the Department of Transport wants to advertise more publicly what the Federal Government is doing in this area. It advertised for a Director of Public Information which attracted a salary of $35,440, an Assistant Director with a salary of $33,235, a Journalist Grade 1A with a salary range of $29,924-$31,053 and a Journalist Grade B with a salary range of $21,943-$22,963. Four journalists are required to help the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) to promote himself. What contribution will they make to the production of the wealth of this nation? That sort of improvidence extends to all departments under this Government. One could well ask why it is necessary, for example, for the Department of Defence Support to have its own separate public relations advertising department when one looks at the huge Department of Defence public relations apparatus. Yet in the same paper the Department of Defence Support also advertised for a cameraman, in this case to assist its journalists in promoting the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe ). In Estimates Committee A it was revealed that the Department of Industry and Commerce, Senator Button's Department, has added another three journalists, bringing its total to seven. The annual cost for journalists in that Department has risen to $448,538. Senator Townley —Nearly half a million dollars. Senator LEWIS —Yes, with loadings.The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has also added another three journalists, bringing its total to 12. One wonders what this Government is all about. Then one sees this sort of information and one begins to realise that what it is all about is self- promotion wherever possible. The Government is hiding the real facts from the people, as we can see in the run up to this election, but it is promoting itself wherever that is possible. This sort of wasteful expenditure does not just end in the areas that I have quoted because the estimates that we are debating also reveal all sorts of other services that have been added to departments. There are now some departments that have equal opportunity officers and social workers within them, thus duplicating the departmental services which have been set up elsewhere to provide the same services. What a lot of nonsense this must be and what a waste of taxpayers' money. If this Government were to cut out all these non-essentials and return Commonwealth Government departments to their correct functions and solely to those functions, this deficit could have been reduced to manageable proportions. We should think back to youth unemployment, which stood at 28.9 per cent in New South Wales and 22.2 per cent in Victoria at 31 March 1984, and ask this Government what it is going to do about that problem. Of course, we know that the special youth employment training program provides wage subsidies to firms which would hire in drop out areas at two-thirds of the average earnings of 15- year-olds, half the average earnings of 18-year-olds and one-third the average earnings of young adults. So the taxpayers are subsiding employers to employ these young people. Is that the correct system? Would it not be better to allow the wages to fall to their proper levels to allow young people to be employed. I remember when I was practising the law I used to take in two young secretary trainees every year. I would allow them to make the tea, learn about filing in the office and do some typing when it was available. In that way they became top notch girls. When they began their typing work they really understood what was happening in the office, who was who, what people were doing, where the filing cabinets were, what was filed in the strong room, what was in the filing cabinets and so on. They understood what the office was all about and they became first class secretaries by the time they were 19 or 20. These days the firm that I used to belong to cannot afford to take on juniors. It has to take on senior girls because the salary levels are so high that a degree of expertise is expected from the first day a typist is employed. Of course, firms have had to develop other systems to cope with the typing problems, so they have had to install these typing system recovery arrangements. The Bureau of Labour Market Research has now suggested that the SYETP is of little assistance to those who are not retained when the subsidy ends. The real tragedy is that their expectations are destroyed and they then turn to the ranks of the long term unemployed. This Government has got its priorities wrong. Its policies have been criticised overseas by certain companies, such as the top international broking firm of Rowe and Pitman, which has offices in London, Tokyo, New York, Johannesburg and Hong Kong. In a letter to its clients it said of Australia: Faced by a government which is essentially hostile to resource development and innately contemptuous of private enterprise, perhaps it would be better to leave investments in Australia to the international institutions just like any other Third World country. Those are not my words; they are the words of a letter written by Rowe and Pitman, the international brokers. Australia was described as being a Third World country. Is this what the unions and this Government are reducing us to? Of course, this Budget is built on fragile assumptions about the future of the economy. The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, has already admitted that if this Government is returned, taxes will have to rise next year, if only to meet the 10 per cent projected increase in staffing levels. This Government has put forward an opportunistic Budget which involves considerable risks. The Government has thrown away the opportunity to reduce the deficit and to attack the size of the national debt. When every other major industrialised nation is desperately searching for ways to reduce public sector indebtedness and the Public Service, this Government goes the other way. It is a throw away Budget designed for an early election, not for the future of Australia. Is it any wonder that Ministers defend it by sneer and smear rather than rational debate? Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.01) —I would like, shortly, to add to some of Senator Lewis's comments, which he put so well, particularly those about the deficit we are facing. I intend to show, with some quotations, what a financial mess this country is getting into. Before doing that, however, I shall deal with a couple of other matters. As the Senate will be rising today, this is now my only opportunity. First, I shall speak very briefly about the Australian Institute of Sport. That organisation has my full support. I believe that any expenditure on capital works at the Institute of Sport is very worth while, as also is expenditure on sporting facilities in the States. It is something which all governments should support. I have visited the Institute of Sport on several occasions, and walking into it after leaving Parliament House one cannot help but be impressed by the change of atmosphere. The enthusiasm that surrounds one there is quite noticeable. I am pleased to see also that the Institute of Sport is not reserved only for the sports people there. It is also used by the community in many ways. Having had the opportunity to see some of the coaches working in their vocation , I can certainly say that they are very hard workers. Those I have seen are an example to the students or the athletes. Of course, the students have to work very hard in their chosen sports. Living areas are being prepared at the moment which will make life a little easier next year for the athletes. One matter the Government should consider is that just because athletes have very good sporting abilities, that does not mean that their parents have enough money to keep them at such a place. Admittedly, all their accommodation costs are paid by the organisation, but I believe there is some need, as I have said in this House before, to give the students at the Institute some small sum under a scholarship to help them with their day to day needs. I am pleased that the Institute will not be continuing to deal with athletes only in Canberra; I am told that very soon coaching will be extended to other areas. Of course, the Institute has already held coaching clinics in most sports. I give members of the Institute my very good wishes for the future. I turn now to the forestry industry in Tasmania. I draw the Senate's attention to an important matter which has potentially serious implications for Tasmania's future. I refer to what I see as the abuse of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975. I think most of us would support the aim of that legislation and the concept that as a nation we should identify those aspects of our natural and cultural environment that deserve special consideration, but the way in which the legislation is now operating is giving me considerable cause for concern. It has always been easy to nominate areas for the Register of the National Estate. Documentation and proof of an area's uniqueness and value are not required. What is required is a nomination. Nominations are considered in the first instance by a local panel of experts who are appointed by the Australian Heritage Commission . Nearly all of those appointed are active or committed conservationists. Once accepted by the panel, an area is given the full protection of the Act. The legislation provides for objections to be lodged, but the Commission will consider only the objections which seek to prove that the area in question is not worthy of inclusion on the Register. Arguments as to the alternative use of the site or its value to local people are not entertained. In any case, the Commission has an enormous backlog of nominated areas in Tasmania against which objections have not even been invited and it may take some years before the areas already nominated can be subjected to the full procedures of the Act. One of the major concerns is that whilst interested people have had some nine years in which to bring to the Commission's attention any area that they believe is worthy of consideration, over recent months there has been a spate of new nominations following the announcement that there would be an environmental impact statement into the export wood chip industry in Tasmania. Areas which were not worth thinking about before suddenly appear very important and must be saved at all costs. The forest based industries believe that the system is being blatantly abused by the conservation movement. A national heritage nomination has become a standard part of strategic efforts to stop an area being used, and it is not being done in which could be called a thoughtful way. I believe there is a strong argument for putting a clear time limit on such nominations rather than welcoming a welter of newly nominated treasures whenever a certain development in an area is proposed. The group which is putting together the draft environmental impact statement on the Tasmanian export wood chip industry is required to pay special attention to national heritage areas. Any changes to licence conditions concerning such areas will take effect from 1986 rather than merely affect post-1988 export wood chip licences. Since the beginning of this year it has been apparent that there has been an orchestrated nomination of large areas of forest and it is impossible for the environmental impact statement group to keep pace. The Australian Heritage Commission apparently also is finding difficulty with the rush and has been unable to provide information required to consider the areas properly. The last time the Commission gave notice of its intention to list places in Tasmania was on 27 March this year. Since then at least 128,000 hectares have been nominated, the vast majority of which is in productive forests. We should expose what I think is a blatant example of abuse of the Australian Heritage Commission Act. I understand that the Government is currently considering a review of the operation of the Act. The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania has developed a policy of the kinds of changes that it feels are required and has forwarded a copy of its policy to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, the Hon. Barry Cohen, which I support. I seek leave to have the few pages incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- FOREST INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF TASMANIA AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ACT INDUSTRY POLICY Introduction 1. FIAT supports the aim of the Legislation. We believe it is desirable to identify those places which have ''aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance or other special value for future generations as well as for the present community'' and to consider such values when making government decisions . 2. Notwithstanding this general support, there are some aspects of the operation of the Act which might be improved and, after some nine years, it is appropriate that the Act should be reviewed. The ''Values'' Protected by the Act 3. One of the major flaws in the Act is that it does not require the Commission to state the values which, in its opinion, make a place worthy of inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. This gives rise to a number of practical problems: (a) persons wishing to object to the inclusion of a place on the register have no opportunity to question the values which the Commission accepted as justifying interim listing. Given that, in effect, the only valid grounds for objection are that the place is unworthy of listing, the failure to state the grounds for interim listing effectively negates the objection process; (b) once a place is entered on the National Estate, people proposing development in the area are given no idea as to the values sought to be protected by the listing. This may prevent them from developing management plans which take those values into account; (c) specification of the values protected by the listing of each place on the Register should assist the Commission to ensure that there is a balance of places listed. Right of ''Appeal'' 4. The Act establishes the Heritage Commission as the sole arbiter of the '' aesthetic, historic, scientific and social significance and other values'' of places suggested for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. Beyond requiring that ''due consideration'' be given to objections, the legislation does not require that the Commission's decisions be based on the evidence or that it act reasonably in all the circumstances or that it should give reasons for its decisions. 5. Given that National Estate Listings can have economic ramifications, particularly at the local level, we believe that the Commission should be required to act in accordance with the principles of administrative law. 6. These deficiencies would be overcome by the insertion of a new section in Part IV along the lines that: ''In exercising its powers under this Part, the Commission shall (a) take all reasonable steps to acquaint itself with the facts; (b) act reasonably in all the circumstances; and (c) prepare a statement of the reasons for decisions taken under Sections 23 and 24 which will be available for public inspection upon request.'' 7. These changes would facilitate a right of appeal or review by an independent body which should include local people who would have a deeper understanding of the values of the nominated area. Abuse of the Act 8. FIAT is most concerned that some groups in the community are seeking to use the Act for their own purposes. There are many areas of Tasmania which could have been nominated over the past nine years but which have only been considered in recent times when a development proposal is publicised. Our information suggests that over 128,000 hectares, mostly commercial forest, has been nominated to the Commission since the Environmental Impact Statement on the export woodchip industry was announced! 9. It is submitted that all the natural places of significance have already been brought to the Commission's attention and that there ought to be a ' deadline', that is, a date after which ministerial approval is required to enable the Commission to enter a place on the Register. 10. This would mean that the Commission would be able to complete its task of compiling the Register in an orderly manner and will not be drawn into local disputes over places which were not previously considered worthy of consideration under the Act. It would also allow new discoveries (of caves for example) to be considered. Grading of Places on the Register of the National Estate 11. At present all places listed on the Register have apparently equal value. This is obviously not the case in practice and leads to uncertainty in the minds of potential developers. 12. If all places on the Register were reassessed, the values they represent specified and a priority order given this would be of assistance both to Federal Ministers making decisions, to other authorities such as State and Local Government and private concerns. The grading system should run from 'to be preserved at all costs' to 'preservation desirable' and would be similar to the system used by the National Trust in some States. 13. The gradings, complete with a statement of the 'values' of each place on the register should be subject to the objection process. Land Use Advice by the Commission 14. Under existing arrangements, the Commission does not entertain arguments relating to land use. 15. It is submitted that the Commission, in addition to noting the 'values' being preserved by the listing, should also state which existing or potential land use it considers would be inconsistent with those values. This would further reduce the uncertainty surrounding National Estate listings and make the system work more smoothly. 16. This should be done in respect of each new listing and, as part of the reassessment mentioned in paragraph 8 above. Summary of Recommendations 17. FIAT recommends that the National Heritage Commission Act should be reviewed and the following suggestions considered: (a) that a notice inviting objections under Section 23 (2) (a) should state the values which convinced the Commissioner that the place concerned should be on the Register (paragraph 3a); (b) that Section 23 (4) should be amended to require the Commission to state in its notice of entry and in the Register itself, the 'values' which it considers renders the place worthy of listing on the Register (paragraph 3b); (c) that a new section be inserted in the Act requiring the Commission to acquaint itself with the facts, to act reasonably, to prepare a statement of its reasons for any decision taken under Sections 23 and 24, and to permit a right of appeal or review to an independent body including representatives of the local community (paragraphs 6-7); (d) that Section 26 be amended to require Ministerial approval for the Commission to consider a place which is not on the list as at the tenth anniversary of the commencement of the Act (paragraphs 8-10); (e) that Section 22 be amended to provide that the Register be divided into categories indicating the relative importance of preserving the places listed thereon (paragraphs 11-13); (f) that the Act be amended to require the Commission to reassess those places already entered on the Register to: (i) determine the 'grading' of the listing, (ii) specify the 'values' preserved by the listing, and (iii) specify the existing or potential land uses which the Commission believes are incompatible with those values, and that the results of the reassessed be subject to the notice and objection provisions of Section 23 (paragraphs 11-13); (g) that Section 22 (3) be amended to require that entries on the Register specify the values for which the place is registered and the land uses which the Commission considers incompatible with those values (paragraphs 14-16). Senator TOWNLEY —Forestry is a very important industry in Tasmania. A great number of people are employed by it. I believe we have to be very careful that we do not let people-whilst many of them are very genuine, others can be very radical-destroy that industry in my home State. One other matter I would like to deal with before moving to discuss the deficit concerns the referendums that are coming up on 1 December. Many people do not seem to recognise that, along with the election that is to be held on 1 December , two referendum cases will also be put. I noted an article on page 9 of this morning's Australian headed 'Referendum not necessarily the end to early polls'. People should keep in mind that a Yes vote for the first referendum will not necessarily end early polls that the Prime Minister may try to hold. If after this election the Government is returned without a majority in the Senate, although it may have won, just for argument's sake, a majority in the House of Representatives, it may try to call an early election so that it can get control of the Senate. I am sure that some of the honourable senators sitting here today would recognise that as very true. The article in the Australian states: It does not guarantee future governments will see out their three-year terms- just that the Government will take half of the Senate to the polls at whatever time it chooses to take the lower House. Under the heading, 'NO CASE', the article states: The No case says the legislation would result in more, not less elections because the Government (which is formed by a majority in the House of Representatives) would have the power to dissolve half the Senate whenever it wished to have an early election. If the House of Representatives was to run its full term then the Senate and the House of Representatives elections would always be held together, the No case says. Also, the Prime Minister already has the power to call a double dissolution, forcing both Houses to an election, when the Senate twice fails to pass the Bill . Senators' fixed terms give the Senate independence. We must remember that point when this referendum comes up. Fixed terms give the Senate the independence it has always had. Giving the Government power to shorten those terms would threaten the independence and the rights of the States , particularly, I must say, as I come from Tasmania, the less populous and smaller States; although Western Australia is a large State it is certainly less populous. I agree with what the article says: The No case says the legislation is part of a plan by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, to abolish the Senate and vest total power in the Canberra Government. That is true also in regard to the proposed Bill of Rights, mentioned yesterday so ably by Senator Durack. It is something else the people of Australia should be very wary of when they go to the polls. This referendum case is important. Honourable senators may gather from what I am saying that I will vote No. I have always voted No in these referendum cases because I do not believe that the government of the day should have the right to interfere with the Constitution. The Constitution has stood us in very good stead. Senator Robert Ray —Did you vote No in 1951? Senator TOWNLEY —We always get interjections from certain people who come in here, who sit back in their chairs-- Senator Gietzelt —You said you always vote No. Does that mean you did not support Commonwealth responsibility for Aborigines? Senator TOWNLEY —I did not vote on that. I was not here. I am not quite as old as Senator Gietzelt. Why does he not retire? He cannot remember things now. Obviously he should know who came into this place at the same time as he did. I am saying that I am against this alteration to the Constitution. I will be making that point very clearly as I campaign in Tasmania and other parts of Australia, as will other senators who recognise what the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) is trying to do to the Constitution and the Senate. I now wish to bring up a matter that was raised by Senator Jessop and me in the adjournment debate last evening. I will read what I said last night: The information I have received, following a couple of telephone calls today, indicates that ASIO is not allowed entirely to look at people within certain organisations that it believes are front organisations and at people who could well be terrorists. That is a very serious situation. It is a matter I have brought up tonight because I was not sure whether we would have an adjournment debate tomorrow or whether I would have time to speak during the sitting of the Senate tomorrow. I have the time and I want to repeat what I said. Later in that debate I called upon the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, to make some response to this situation that I believe involves national security. I said: However, I do not think it is good enough to let the Senate rise tomorrow without something being said about this matter of national security. I ask: Is the Government not interested in national security any more? That is the Government's first responsibility; the first responsibility of any government is the security of the country. Senator Button is sitting silently and making no statement in regard to this matter. I have always regarded Sentor Button as a person of integrity and also as a fairly knowledgeable politician. He knows very well that unless something is said about this matter and some offer made to look into it, it will be brought up again and again until something is said. That is what I am doing now. Senator Robert Ray —What are you doing? Senator TOWNLEY —I am trying to bring national security to the forefront of the Senate once more. Whilst Senator Robert Ray from Victoria may not have any interest whatsoever in national security or in the security of Ministers during this election campaign, which was one of the bases on which this matter was brought up, it is something that the great majority of people in the community are worried about. I call once more upon the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or the Attorney-General, who I was informed is the person responsible for stopping the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation from inquiring into certain matters and groups- Senator Robert Ray —What matters? Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Ray can get his own information; he knows very well. Government senators interjecting- Senator TOWNLEY —Here they go. They know very well- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Townley will direct his comments through the Chair. This will prevent many of the interjections. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Robert Ray from Victoria, by interjection, asked which organisations. The information that I was given- Senator Robert Ray —By whom? Senator TOWNLEY —Let me answer one question at a time. The information I was given- Senator Gietzelt —What people? How many people are we talking about-one or six? Senator TOWNLEY —ASIO is not allowed to investigate certain groups and individuals in the way it wants to and that, I believe from information I have received, is by direction of the Attorney-General. I expect that somebody in the Government should take the matter with a little more seriousness than those sitting on the Government benches right now are obviously taking it. In the few minutes that I have left to speak, I want to talk about why this country will face an onslaught of new taxation after this election if the Australian Labor Party is returned to the Government benches. One of the main reasons, of course, is that it is a big spending government. Other people have said that; I will not go into the areas that are quite obvious to anyone. If we have a big spending government, we must have big taxes. If we balance our Budget the amount of taxes we bring in is equal to the amount of money we spend. This Government is spending a lot more than it is recouping in taxes. The situation in this country is now getting quite desperate. Let me quote from some newspaper articles that I have with me this morning. These articles are not all of them by any means that mention the matter of the national debt. Of course, the national debt is the accumulation of deficits over a number of years. Over the last couple of years we have seen the national debt increase by some $15,000m. That is a very large amount. Unfortunately the Government does not seem to recognise what a dangerous situation we are in. In a speech the other day I said that it was clear from an examination of expenditure over the period when the Liberal Party was in government that a learning curve was required to recognise the danger in continuing deficits. A very real effort was made by the Fraser Government to curb the expenditure in the public sector so that the deficit could be reduced. Unless we reduce our deficit we are spending more money than we are getting in. It is just like an ordinary household where if we spend more than we get in eventually we will get ourselves into trouble. This country has been borrowing abroad at very high rates of interest. It is now getting to a stage which I feel is comparable with what is happening in some countries in South America. The Australian of 7 May 1984 had a headline 'Govt ''mortgaging future'' with national debt of $76,000m'. The article states: The national total public debt of about $76,000m represents more than $5,000 for each man, woman and child in Australia. The article then mentions the Australian Chamber of Commerce and continues- The Chamber which is about to conduct a full inquiry into the national debt, says the almost exponential increase in public debt is 'mortgaging Australia's future'. As a mathematician, I know that an exponential rate of increase is a dangerous increase indeed. A graph in my room shows that the amount of interest paid on overseas borrowings and borrowings within Australia is increasing at an exponential rate. That graph has a very steep upward curve. That tendency, once started, is very hard to reverse. Obviously that is something known and recognised by some of the media people around this country. It is to be hoped that the learning curve of the Australian Labor Party is such that it recognises what a mess this country is getting into with its foreign and local debt. The Courier-Mail of 8 May had a headline 'Your $5,000 debt to the nation'. The Sydney Morning Herald of 16 May had a headline 'CRA chief warns on burden of foreign debt'. It was stated in that article: Unfortunately for the economic optimists one of Australia's most influential mining executives, John Ralph of CRA, endorses the gloomy portrait currently being painted of the resource sector's immediate future. If we do not export how on earth will we repay our overseas debts? Other senators who have spoken before me have pointed out that not only is the income of our farmers expected to drop by nearly one third this year but also a lot of overseas exports are dropping in price. The left wing of the Labor Party is trying to stop uranium exports. Uranium is a metal abundant in the earth's crust and if we do not export it, others will. Yet while everything else is dropping the left wing asks why we should export uranium. If we do not export some of these things this country will become comparable with the countries I mentioned a moment ago. According to information provided by the Parliamentary Library we are already more in debt per head of population than Poland, whose per capita debt is only about half as much as ours. Brazil's debt is about the same, Chile' s is about two-thirds, Argentina's about the same and Mexico's about half. Those figures were compiled by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PER CAPITA LIABILITIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING COMMUNITY; SELECTED COUNTRIES: 1982 Per capita Country Liabilities Population liabilities $USm m $US/person Australia 27,924 (a)14.86 1,880 Poland 27,707 (b)35.23 790 Brazil 115,753 (a)121.55 950 Chile 11,610 (c)11.49 1,010 Argentina 50,986 (a) 28.09 1,820 Mexico 62,888 (a)71.19 880 (a) 1981 estimate. (b) 1979 estimate. (c) 1982 estimate. Note: Per capita liabilities rounded to nearest $US10. Source: I. P. Sharp & Associates. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator TOWNLEY —Just two days ago a Mr Block, the chief economist at Dominguez Barry Samuel Montagu, said in his weekly comment: . . . although Australia had easily retained its AAA credit status overseas at a time when New Zealand had been downgraded to AA, Australia's growing gross foreign debt required immediate attention. He went on to say: While Australia has a healthier international debt position than New Zealand, inevitably the more Australia borrows offshore, the easier it is for foreigners to look critically at our country's capacity to repay. If we continue to borrow at the increased rate we have borrowed at over the last few years I very much worry about the future of this country. As Brian Buckly said recently at a conference entitled 'Australia: Poor Nation of the Pacific?', unless we do something fairly soon, unless the people who obviously do not understand anything other than the day to day figures given to them by those in this building who provide such figures, this country will be heading for a very serious position. Our debt is staggering. We now spend on interest almost as much as we do on defence. If we did not have to make those interest repayments we could spend more on defence in this country, and I believe that is something that a great number of people would like to see. I believe that is why this country will face massive taxation after Labor is returned. Members of the Australian Labor Party are in a learning curve and I forgive them for the errors they have made in the first 18 months but they will be told in the end that they have to do something before this country goes down the plughole. The situation is really becoming quite serious, and is one that I do not like to see at all. Perhaps we should have more economic lessons, particularly for the people who sit on the Government benches because they certainly do not appear to understand just how dangerous this situation is becoming. When we realise that we have to pay back the huge borrowings that this Government has undertaken we can understand why taxes have to go up and why it is said that the Labor Party has a secret tax agenda that it will not tell the people of this country about. We have a huge debt but anybody who runs a household or anything of that nature knows that if we borrow we have to repay. This Government realises it cannot tell us of its secret tax agenda because of the massive amount of money it will have to borrow. I ask the voters of this country: 'Are you prepared to trust Mr Hawke and his socialist colleagues with your pay packets, because if you vote for them that is what you will be doing'. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(11.30) —I note that Senator Cook is particularly interested in the polls. I am not sure that he has seen today's Bulletin poll but it shows a decline in the Labor vote to about 50 per cent-a 5 per cent drop. No doubt he has a good reason to understand why that has happened . I want to address myself to the expenditure of the Department of Social Security. In particular I refer to an interesting exchange between myself, Senator Walters and the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, during the course of the Estimates committees on matters relating to invalid pensions. It was revealed during the course of the Estimates committees that there had been an increase in the numbers of invalid pensions granted by the Government-a significant increase of some 40,000 since April 1983. This is reflected quite strongly in the Estimates this year in the Budget Papers in which we see that one of the highest growing areas of expenditure by the Federal Government is invalid pensions and allowances. We see that the expenditure for the year ended June 1985 will be $1,466m compared with an actual payment in the 1984 financial year of $1,252.7m-in other words, an increase of $213m, or about 17 per cent over the previous year. That is a very substantial increase-one of the highest rating increases in any area of social security expenditure in the current year' s Budget. I naturally exclude those items for which, because of the relatively small absolute amounts of money being spent, any rise at all registers very highly in percentage terms. But excluding those items, this is one of the fastest growing areas of Government expenditure. Clearly the Government over the last 18 months, since it came to office, has been trying to demonstrate how responsible it is in cutting back expenditure, particularly in the area of social security. It has been making great play about its actions. The assets test, the over-70s income test and the lump sum superannuation tax have all been designed to try to cut back on social security expenditure. Government members have been saying: 'How responsible are we? We are making sure that the aged today will pay so that we will be able to spend more on the poor and needy.' Perhaps they are doing that but the area in which they have been spending the most is the area of invalid pensions. This merely represents a transfer from one category to another say from the unemployment benefit to invalid pensions. The point has to be made that in the area of invalid pensions the administrative decisions are made by the Government. It has total control. This emerged very clearly during the course of investigations by the Estimates committees. We discussed the matter with the Minister, Senator Grimes, and I asked him why it was that in the State of New South Wales there had been a very rapid growth in he granting of invalid pensions. When I made the point that doctors in New South Wales apparently had been acting rather more generously in granting invalid pensions than in the past, Senator Grimes said, at page 193 of the Hansard of Estimates Committee B: One of the problems that arose was that the CMOs-it is no good beating about the bush on this-were rejecting large numbers of cases and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was overturning the decisions of the CMOs. Senator Grimes made the point that clearly the Commonwealth medical officers who had responsibility for making decisions in this area had been making them and subsequently having them overturned. During the course of this exchange I asked the Minister whether he thought that doctors in New South Wales were being a bit hard on people. He agreed that he thought they had. He also then made the further point that he had given instructions that in fact they should be more lenient in granting invalid pensions. I make the point that this is a direct intervention of the Minister in causing an increase in social security expenditure. It is in an area in which there has been no action nominated on the part of the Government; nor has it been made clear in any policy statement of the Labor Party that in fact this was intended. It seems to me to be rather strange that the Government is prepared to do this kind of thing while at the same time it is not prepared to impose great sanctions on the vast social security frauds that have been evidenced in recent times in television programs and in other places. At the same time, it imposes great burdens on the aged in Australia's population who in recent days have been inundated with forms in connection with the assets test. These kinds of actions on the part of the Government appear to be contradictory or, at the very least, without thought. We fail to understand how the Government can say that it is heading in one direction when it is actually achieving the direct opposite by increasing social security expenditure by its own decision. In the course of the discussions in the Estimates Committee the Minister, Senator Grimes, told us that many of the decisions in relation to invalid pensions that were made by Commonwealth medical officers were being overturned on appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal or to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We then asked whether the Minister would provide us with statistics on this to demonstrate what was happening. With the Estimates papers we were sent a table which shows the numbers of invalid pension medical appeals conceded or upheld in the last three years. I will cite these figures as they are of interest in this context. In 1981-82 the total number was 3,467. That rose very sharply in the next year, 1982-83, to 4,917. So far, that seems to justify the Minister's argument that there had been a very big rise in the number of appeals passing through the various tribunals. But in the next year, the first year of the Labor Government, 1983-84, that number had dropped to 3, 299, less than the number that had applied in the 1981-82 year. The question that seems to be begging to be answered is: If there has been a substantial fall in the number of appeals conceded, why does the Minister see it as necessary to instruct the medical officers in the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security to be more liberal in their approach to granting invalid pensions? The two things do not seem to hang together. I wonder why the Minister deemed it necessary to take the action that he has. He has given us the basic, blanket statement that most of the decisions by Commonwealth medical officers to refuse applications were overturned on appeal, but I do not understand on the figures why or how it is that he can justify the action that he has taken. The assets test generally is a matter of very great interest to the community at the moment because of the huge tide of information-seeking forms that have been flooding into pensioners' postboxes in recent days. The reaction that it is causing in the community is one of great concern and very great confusion. It is quite clear from the information that is flowing into our offices as members of the Liberal and National parties that it is not so much the people who have just recently retired who are the ones most affected by this proposal. It is not the ones who have been retired even for a short period, such as two or five years. It is those people who are approaching their final years, those well into their eighties, who find a great deal of difficulty in coping with this enormous bureaucratic form filling system that has been thrust upon them. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that that group is the group that will be most affected as a result of the introduction of the Labor Government's assets test. I make that point because over the last 18 months a great number of people have come to see me about the matter. Time and time again they are the people who through their lives have been thrifty, who have saved and have sought to look after themselves. They are now entering their eighties and because of their advanced aged and advancing frailty their situation demands some kind of alternative accommodation. They can no longer stay in the large family home, but need to move into a nursing home or perhaps into an elderly citizen's cottage. Frequently, people in these circumstances are widowed. They sell up their properties. In Sydney or Melbourne it is not too unreasonable to expect that people might get at least $100,000 or $120,000 for their homes. They have never been able to gain access to that amount of money through their working lives or their lives in retirement, but suddenly in their eighties they find that they have that amount of money coming to them. They buy access to a nursing home or to an elderly citizen's home for a much lower amount, perhaps $20,000 or $30,000 or thereabouts. Therefore, they have an investible surplus for the first time in their lives, at a time when left to their own devices they could at least live out their final years in some kind of comfort. But no, the Government now rolls along and says: 'Right, that extra money that came from the sale of your home will now be treated as an asset and you will be penalised and receive no future support from the Government by way of the pension'. These are the kinds of people who will be directly affected. They are not millionaires. They do not belong to Senator Gietzelt's list of 124 pension cheats. They are ordinary people who have reached the advanced stages of their lives and are being terrorised by this Government in their final years. Senator Peter Baume —They want a fair go. Senator MESSNER —Of course, all they are looking for is a fair go from this Government. That is what is so devastating to them. Before the election 18 months ago having been lured into the promise of better times ahead these people find themselves in terrible trouble as a result of having given their fate to the Hawke Labor Government. These people are faceless, silent and generally not active or organised. This group is suffering most at the hands of this Government. It is not comprised of millionaires; it is not comprised of people who are ripping off the system. These people will be most damaged by this Government's ill thought out activities. Apart from those effects, we must bear in mind the longer term arguments that are of devastating proportions for the future, but those matters have been canvassed long and hard on many occasions. The advanced age group represents a real challenge to the Government in providing for the needy. The term 'needy' does not need to be defined in respect of how much money a person has in a bank account or otherwise, but by people's ability to look after themselves, their need for attendant care, nursing home care, hospice care or the general support of their families as well as in institutions, whether governmental or non-governmental. That is the real challenge that is ahead of us. The aging problem will not hit Australia like a typhoon in the twenty-first century, some 40 years away. The real problem of the aged is with us now. It involves that group of people who are living longer as a result of the advances of medical science; who are staying far longer than they did 20 or 30 years ago, and who therefore are in greater need of support. That is the challenge in looking after the aged that is with us now. It will not be dealt with by the kind of heartless action taken by the present Government which strips such people of their last semblance of dignity in the last years of their lives. The problem will not be solved in that way. In fact, such action can only worsen the problem and cause the aged more difficulties in their last years. Let us examine alongside the problem of the aged, the combined effect of the introduction of Medicare. This Government promised that under Medicare pensioners would have free access to public hospitals and could obtain treatment whenever they wished. The reality is that in the State of Victoria, for example, some 8,000 people are awaiting elective surgery in the public hospitals. This is happening all over Australia. The number of people who cannot obtain services in public hospitals is growing rapidly as a result of the Government's mistaken introduction of Medicare. Those people who, quite naturally, in their last few years are concerned about their health and their ability to obtain rapid medical and hospital treatment, are finding that to cover their individual circumstances they have to abandon thoughts of any support from Medicare by taking out private health insurance. I put the point clearly to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt ), who surely must see it. He must realise that those who have abandoned private health insurance in the last couple of years, following the Government's promises about Medicare, now find that they must return to private health insurance funds at a stage of their lives when it may be more difficult to prove that they qualify for health insurance under the rules of private funds. Many aged people are finding it difficult even to obtain such assistance. We must also consider the cost of the insurance itself, which must be considered on top of Medicare payments if a person in this position is paying the levy. At the core of the great disillusionment of many aged persons at their treatment by the present Government is their worry and concern about costs and other considerations. These are the facts of life. They are not theoretical concepts. However, as we have already seen, the assets test is a theoretical concept. It will cost $55m to establish the scheme and this year $18m will be returned to the scheme. In other words, the Government is spending the money subscribed by taxes, including taxes from the poor in our community-namely a sum of $37m-to set up a bureaucratic machine to run the assets test. Is it any wonder that the Liberal and National parties see the need for the immediate removal of such a test. One of our first actions as soon as we are elected to government on 1 December, will be to remove the assets test from the statute book. That is at the core of our concern for the aged. In our opinion, the Government has missed the point entirely as to where the problems of the aged lie. The Government is not paying attention to the most needy in the community. I emphasise that 'needy' does not necessarily mean 'poor '. It involves assisting people with services in such a way that they can obtain support in the latter years of their lives. This Government has no heart when it comes to that group of people. The Government is continuing its campaign of terror out there in the streets with the posting out in the last few days of a whole set of forms. Those forms lay down heavy penalties if people do not comply with them. That is the kind of procedure people will be forced to face up to in the next few weeks. The Government will have the ability to investigate the performance of individual pensioners in providing information in the forms; it will be able to chase up the details, obtain access to other information that is held by third parties. One can imagine the feelings of persons in their eighties who have written their last wills and testaments and left them in the custody of a solicitor. During the life of a pensioner a solicitor will be forced to answer detailed and intimate questions relating to the finances of individuals before such people go to the grave. That is the kind of situation created by the Government's policies in this field. One cannot help being astounded that the Government cannot see the mess it is making in the minds of the community on this issue. I do not understand why it does not see the sense of the argument that the terror created in the community by the Government is not worth the candle. However, the Government in a misguided way presses on in search of some kind of mythical support from people who fail to understand the real needs of the community. I wish to refer to one other matter. There is no doubt that the assets test as introduced is the first foot in the door, leading the way to some kind of assets test tax or savings tax which will be introduced by the Government if it is re- elected in December. The Minister for Social Security is now present in the chamber. He is the source of our greatest clue on this matter, by virtue of having said in Labor Essays of 1983 that if they wish to be consistent the Government and those who argue in favour of an assets test should be considering the introduction of a capital gains tax. Obviously the Government has this in mind if re-elected. One cannot logically be dissociated from the other and as a result the assets test will remain on the books. That is why the Government has refused to take it away. The Government knows that it is the first step in the plan to introduce higher taxes and other taxes aimed at destroying the accumulation of private capital. Senator Jessop —Including a savings tax. Senator MESSNER —Yes, a savings tax is coming in future, if the present Government is re-elected. People have the solution in their hands by making sure that they vote against the Labor Government and in favour of the Liberal and National parties at the election on 1 December. In regard to the capital gains taxes that may be proposed, I wish to make the point that somehow the myth is perpetuated that the present Government has not already introduced a capital gains tax. The most significant capital gains tax that has been introduced in the life of this Government is the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. That tax was announced within two months of the Government coming to office in March 1983. Having already given promises to the effect that it would not introduce any tax on lump sum superannuation, it did so immediately upon being elected. The fact is that lump sum superannuation payments are in the same category of payments as goodwill. They are paid out upon retirement after a long period of service with an employer and are consequently in the category of severance payments in the same way as goodwill represents a payment when one sells a business such as a newsagency or a milk round. At the moment those kinds of payments are not subject to tax, although it will not be long, if Labor is re- elected, before they will be taxed. Yet people who have worked for 40 years or so to accumulate an amount of lump sum superannuation are subject to a capital gains tax on that amount. The rates are interesting. The present rate is 30 per cent but we recall very well that the first rates to apply when Labor announced its proposals on this kind of capital gains tax were to be as high as 60 per cent. That is what this Government is on about. It is gradually moving the tax system towards the introduction of greater taxation on people's savings. It is out to destroy people's independence. That is what Labor governments are all about. They want dependence. They want to create in people a sense of being absolutely reliant upon the Government rather than the reverse, which is to encourage people to be independent of government by building their own savings in such a way that they can look after themselves not only in retirement but also in other circumstances. That is what is so important about the introduction of the Liberal Party's social security policies this week and the family tax package, which entails income tax splitting and child care rebates. This not only gives families choice but also encourages them to save for their own future. That is what Australians want. That is why they are opposed to what the Labor Party has been doing with its assets test, with the capital gains tax which it has introduced on lump sum superannuation and with the capital gains tax which it intends to introduce, if it is re-elected, on other people's savings as well. Those are the core arguments in this forthcoming election campaign and we on this side of the House -that is, the Liberal and National parties, because the Australian Democrats supported the assets test legislation-are opposed to the assets test. We will repeal that legislation. Indeed, it will be the first action that we will take upon our election to government. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(11.58) —For several long days and nights the Senate has been debating the Appropriation Bills. That, of course, is part of its obligation and responsibility. However, members of the Opposition parties have, if I can use the vernacular, hogged the debate. They have used the debate for the purposes of electioneering and have used this Senate as a forum for the approaching 1 December election. They have failed in the great majority of cases to address themselves to the appropriation matters that are currently before the Senate and, with one or two exceptions, they have failed to carry out their proper responsibilities in respect of the appropriations. Yesterday when we were discussing the Senate's responsibilities to deal with the Appropriation Bills and other legislative matters that were before us, we were treated to a great deal of debate, cant and humbug by the Opposition and in particular by the various speakers from the Liberal Party of Australia who suggested that by putting some time limit upon the debate on the Appropriation Bills we were taking from the Senate its time honoured obligation to deal in the Committee stage with those Bills. Every Opposition speaker has taken his or her full half hour and has ranged right across the political issues of the day, instead of being out on the hustings where we should have been since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the Government's intention that the House of Representatives and the Senate would rise and that we should take our political programs to the Australian people in the proper and traditional way. The few exceptions among Opposition speeches were designed to create in the public's mind the impression that somehow or other this Government was failing in the responsibilities it took on when it was elected in March 1983. I shall canvass just one or two of those questions. I do not intend to be selfish in this debate by taking up my half hour, which would mean that no time would be spent in the Committee stage. If the debate yesterday had any substance at all and we really are very concerned about asking questions in the Committee stage, the people who have created that problem are the selfish members of the Liberal Party. After all, the Government was elected in 1983 to get growth, to create employment, to solve the housing problems and to lift living standards and it has in its two Budgets embarked on a course of achieving those objectives. I take umbrage at the statements, particularly by Senator Messner, that this Government is not concerned about the problems of the aged. We have indicated that in the next three years we will spend $30m specifically from the newly- established Office of Aged Care for the purpose of addressing those problems which exist in respect of the aged and frail members of the Australian community . I remind Senator Messner that the problems of the aged did not begin in March 1983. They have been with us for a considerable time and there has been a period of great neglect by the Liberal and National parties to accept their responsibilities in this area. In my portfolio of Veterans' Affairs we have taken specific steps to create employment and to keep aged persons in their own homes and out of institutions, and that has now been taken up by State governments. As a Commonwealth entity we are providing substantial funding for the development of home help and domiciliary-type assistance so that the aged will not be an institutional problem as they were under the Fraser Liberal- National Party Government. We will be creating a much better environment by allowing them to stay in their own homes, given a modicum or a minimum of assistance which will be part of the responsibilities of both the States and the Commonwealth in respect of funding and facilities. Senator Messner spoke of the assets test. He did not tell the Senate or those who were listening that people who dispose of their homes may have up to $150, 000 before they need have any care, concern or responsibilities in respect of the assets test. There is abundant evidence from my Department, which was able to send out its forms 10 days ago, that there is not the degree of community concern that has been attempted to be whipped up by the Liberal and National parties. In fact, the great majority of the persons receiving forms will not even have to return them. Of course, it must surely be common knowledge within the Australian community that every pensioner has to fill in a form. This is not an unusual event. Even before the Hawke Government came to office, people in receipt of social security payments were required from time to time to fill in forms in respect of their entitlements. So this is nothing new. In fact, the Government is being very generous in the way in which it has applied the assets test to bring about a redistribution so that it can meet its obligations to raise the living standards of aged persons. Senator Messner's suggestion that hundreds of thousands of people in their eighties will be required to fill in a form in respect of the assets test is attempting to strike fear into the minds and hearts of those people. The overwhelming majority of people who receive social security and service pension payments are in their sixties and seventies. That is why in my ministerial area in the last three years there has been expenditure in excess of $80m on service pensions as World War II veterans have reached the age of 60. No one is going to suggest that people in this age group are not capable of fulfilling their responsibilities and obligations in respect of filling in forms. Of course, we heard a great deal from Senator Messner about the recent increase in social security payments to invalids. I remind the Senate, of course, of what the previous Government did in respect of payments to invalids. The previous Government introduced a new medical test in the Budget that was presented a couple of years before the Labor Party came to office. Invalid pensioners suffered great distress as a result of being required to undertake another medical test. Many invalids lost their pension because of this reassessment which resulted from actions taken by the Liberal-National Party Government. We have introduced a much more liberal interpretation in respect of an invalid person. I think it is proper that the Government took steps that were much more liberal than those taken hitherto to enable invalids to be eligible for a pension. There is no doubt that on gaining office the Government had to take steps to create growth because growth not only creates employment but also in the same process creates revenue by way of taxation. The Government, with the support of both the trade union movement and the business community of Australia has acted responsibly in this area. For the first time in the history of this country we have had a prices and incomes accord which enjoys the support of both the business and trade union communities. It is in that environment that this Government in its 1984-85 Budget anticipates increased growth, regeneration of our housing industries and the creation of a quarter of a million jobs. The sum total of all of that economic activity will be the capacity to redistribute wealth by way of the collection of tax to a greater extent than had previously been the case. I would have expected a much more constructive approach in the Senate to the problems that face this country and, of course, most of the countries of the Western world. Honourable senators opposite talk about this Government's deficit of $6.7 billion when the conservative governments of other countries, including the United States of America, have deficits which pro rata are many times greater than that. So I do not think there is any doubt that the Australian people will recognise that this Government has acted responsibly. We know from experience that the Australian people recognise that we have taken the correct step in regard to the Veterans' Affairs and Social Security assets test and have established a system which is based upon the needs and not the greed of the community. The Government can expect that the Appropriation Bills will be passed. We thank the Australian Democrats for the assistance they have given us in this respect. They do not deserve the infamous condemnation that was heaped upon them yesterday having regard to the way in which the Liberal and National parties have wasted the time of the Senate. Although it is normal practice for the Senate to sit for an extra week after the House of Representatives rises we have now been sitting for 10 days. This has been a deliberate tactic carried out by both Liberal and National parties. Both sides of the Senate have always before an election adopted the process of declaring Bills to be urgent Bills. Legislation has been declared urgent so that the Senate can fulfil its obligations to deal with the Government's legislation program that obviously enjoys the overwhelming support of the other place. On the basis of that legislative program, the Government will clearly be re-elected on 1 December. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(12.11) —I take this opportunity to support what Senator Townley said during the adjournment debate last night in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Concern has been expressed to us that ASIO officers are worried because of the restrictions that have been placed upon them by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I believe, as was said last night, it is important that in matters concerning the security of Ministers , leaders of the Opposition, members of the House of Representatives and senators during an election campaign, the Government should make a statement to assure us about its confidence with respect to the capacity of ASIO to conduct security surveillance in Australia. I am not surprised at some of the attitudes held by the Labor Party with respect to security. I have noted with concern that the Government has opened its arms to the establishment of offices in Australia for the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation which are self-professed terrorist organisations. The Government embraces the Palestine Liberation Organisation with some affection. It welcomes to Australia people such as the Vice-Premier of Vietnam who was given VIP and, as seemed to be appropriate in terms of colour, red carpet treatment. I am not surprised either at some of the attitudes held by the Government with respect to the security of Australia particularly having regard to leftist politicians such as Ms Joan Coxsedge. I refer to an article written by Brigadier Greville entitled 'Violence linking old and new' in the Advertiser of Wednesday, 17 October, following the incredibly disastrous bombing at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, England, where the lives of Mrs Thatcher and others were threatened and which resulted in the death of some people, including a member of parliament . The article states: Another prominent Leftist politician, Ms Joan Coxsedge, organised a tribute by 30 Labor politicians to IRA gunman Bobby Sands which was published in two Melbourne daily newspapers on May 7, 1981. The article goes on to state: Ms Coxsedge leads the fight to have ASIO disbanded or its powers reduced. She claims to do so in the name of individual liberty. The organisations she supports such as the IRA do not believe in individual freedom. Later in that article Brigadier Greville makes this comment: The ABC program AM, which uses Ms Coxsedge as an adviser on security matters, attacks ASIO at every opportunity. It was predictable that its first comment upon the Brighton bombing was criticism of the 'inefficiency' of the British security forces. I would not be surprised if the Attorney-General has placed some restriction on the operation of ASIO. I would not be surprised also if ASIO's attitude is: ' What is the use of us trying to establish a proper national security surveillance force in this country if the Attorney-General is placing certain restrictions upon us?' For that reason it seems that ASIO is pretty relaxed about exercising proper surveillance for the personal security of Ministers, leaders of the Opposition, and senators and members. Surveillance is quite a serious matter in Australia at present. I have been informed by a reliable source that an overseas country intends providing funds to assist a demonstration in Australia later this year. The main object, of course, will be to disrupt our development, which would be in the economic interests of that country. I have tried to make some inquiries through ASIO about this matter and have found that protocol apparently suggests that I have to go through the office of the Federal Attorney-General if I want to pursue my inquiries through ASIO. This is unfortunate because I doubt whether I could expect the Federal Attorney-General to give me co-operation in this matter. Therefore, I am pursuing another line of inquiry because I believe that in due time I will be able to reveal the dangers associated with this matter. I think that a lot of the demonstrations at Roxby Downs in South Australia have been financially supported by overseas countries. Senator Coleman —What a load of codswallop! Senator JESSOP —It is not a load of codswallop. I will have some proof that will make even Senator Elstob's hair curl when I make the information public as soon as I have been able to follow my inquiries through to a successful conclusion. The reliable source which provided me with this information has assured me that a considerable sum of money is coming from overseas to assist in a demonstration that will occur before the end of this year. Senator Elstob —What is the source? Senator JESSOP —I am not telling the honourable senator my source; I would be frightened to do so because he would probably intimidate the source concerned. Have no fear, in due time I will reveal what I have in my mind. The seriousness is that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) last night sat dumb and refused to give assurances to Senator Townley and me that he would present a statement in the Senate today assuring us that the ASIO security surveillance capability was not impeded or damaged in any way by any suggestions that emanate from the Federal Attorney-General. I repeat the request, in the interests of all Australians that that statement should be made. I turn to another matter. I commend the recent report of Estimates Committee A, particularly the reference to the transfer of functions and the report of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing which was presented to the Parliament by me as Chairman in November 1981. I quote from the report of Estimates Committee A: The Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing recommended that the President arrange discussions with appropriate Executive departments with a view to transferring to the administration of the Parliamentary departments those functions affecting Senators' entitlements and facilities currently administered by them. In its report of October 1983 Estimates Committee A expressed a particular interest in seeing the implementation of this recommendation. The report goes on to support the policy of transferring various other functions to the Senate. This matter has been the subject of debate and support on both sides of the House for a number of years. I notice that the President has resumed the chair. He has been one of the strongest advocates, supported by many of his colleagues, of the sequence of events that the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing suggested be carried out. When in opposition, he was Deputy Chairman of that Committee. Unfortunately we have been frustrated in our efforts to transfer these functions. Despite agreement in principle by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Administrative Services at the time, we now find ourselves bogged down with problems regarding the transfer of the rest of the functions as suggested by the Select Committee and supported by Senate Estimates committees since that time. I had in mind to move a motion that the Senate carry on and transfer those functions. There is no reason why we should not do that. We have already established our own Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Over the years people have been saying that we should be the masters of our own ship and that we should be independent of the Executive. The concept was applauded when the report of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing was presented to the House of Representatives by the then Opposition, which suggested that it was an excellent idea. I notice that the House of Representatives has failed to follow the lead which inevitably came from the Senate. If the House of Representatives adopted the principle of establishing its own appropriations and staffing committee we could then quite fairly say that the Parliament was run independently of the Executive. Having sat upon the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing under the capable chairmanship of the President, there is no doubt in my mind that this role is carried out with responsibility. It is not a question of saying that the members of the Parliament now have control of their own ship with respect to staffing and appropriations and will go mad and overspend. I think there was an occasion last year when the Committee decided to cut down on the appropriations that were recommended initially. I am quite certain that the Committee that we have established is responsible, would have regard to economic restraints and to the problems of the community at large, and would not do other than set an example of responsibility in financial management. I express regret that the House of Representatives has not seen fit to do the same thing. I give notice right now that when this matter is debated in the Senate next time I will move a substantive motion hoping that we will get the unanimous support of the Senate with respect to the transfer of the rest of the functions recommended in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing, which received the unanimous endorsement of this chamber. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.25) —We are about to come to the conclusion of this cognate debate on the Appropriation Bills and I, as the final speaker, do not have very long to sum up this very long and tortuous debate. There have been many speakers in this debate and all sorts of attitudes have emanated from Opposition senators. The Jeremiahs such as Senator Sir John Carrick and others have suggested that all is not well with this country and, in particular, with this Government. They have suggested that the Budget figures are inaccurate, that the deficit will inevitably blow out, that the predictions of the money supply are wrong, and that there is doom and gloom around the corner. I point out only that the people who have been making speeches like that on this occasion are, surprisingly enough, the same people who during the Opposition's term in government said that everything in the garden was rosy, that recovery was just around the corner, that the reason we were having economic difficulties had nothing to do with Mr Fraser, Mr Howard, Mr Stone or anybody else but was to do with the world economic scene; that the main reason the country was having difficulties was that consumers would not buy , the savers would not spend, the manufacturers would not manufacture. Everybody was blamed over those years except the government of the day and all its chickens came home to roost in March last year. Before the first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government the same people said that our Budget deficit predictions were wrong, that our money supply predictions were wrong, and that our estimates of the decrease in the number of people receiving unemployment benefit were too generous. What happened? The Budget deficit came in under target, the money supply was on target, and the unemployment benefit bill for my Department last year was over $300m less than we predicted. In other words, our predictions were not exaggerated. They were too conservative, too cautious. Unemployment is going down, inflation has gone down, interest rates have gone down, and the number of people in employment has gone up by 250,000. There is a general feeling of confidence in the economy. The trouble is that the Jeremiahs on the other side do not like it. We have had a few philosophical meanderings into the past. It is easy to tell that an election is around the corner. We have just heard from Senator Jessop one of those red menace-yellow peril speeches that we hear in this place only just before an election. People such as Senator Jessop have a reflex. They say that such speeches won them votes in 1966, 1955 and 1951; therefore they ought to win them votes now. They do not realise that the electorate learnt over all those years when those people were kicking the communist can and talking about reds under the bed and the yellow peril coming down. People became immune to that sort of nonsense. They do not believe it any more because it is not true. It is ironical that from the last Opposition speaker in this debate we should hear the sort of nonsense that we do not hear with any consistency except just before election time. We had complaints that we were cutting off the debate on the Appropriation Bills and that people would not be able to speak in the Committee stage. Yet today at least two Liberal speakers were added to the speakers list ensuring that there would be no Committee stages and that the debate on the second readings would finish at 12.30 p.m. Senator Harradine —Have it tomorrow. Senator GRIMES —I am sorry for Senator Harradine that that has happened but the fault lies not on this side of the chamber but in the behaviour of people on the other side of the chamber. This is a responsible Budget. The predictions about what will happen over the next financial year are as inaccurate as the predictions we heard from people such as Senator Chaney this time last year. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. The reason that Senator Chaney makes such bitter speeches as the speech he made last night is that he knows he is speaking to people who cannot believe him any more, after the fistful of dollars in 1977, after the predictions of imminent recovery in 1980, and after the talk about the resources boom we heard in this place until 1983. I recommend that the Senate support the Appropriation Bills which we have been debating cognately. I am sorry that we have not been able to have a more reasonable debate. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for consideration of the Bill having expired, I put the question: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator Peter Rae-I seek leave to move an amendment which was foreshadowed yesterday and circulated in my name. Senator Grimes-In order to test the view of the Senate, I would be happy to give leave but in light of the motion of the Senate, that leave would have to be conditional on the matter not being debated. Senator Peter Rae-The condition is accepted. Senator Harradine-As far as I am concerned, the condition is not accepted and I wish to make a statement relating to the matter. I indicated clearly to the mover of the amendment that I was concerned with certain features of it. The PRESIDENT —Order! Is leave granted for Senator Harradine to make a statement ? Senator Grimes-We have no idea what the statement is or how long it will be. I think it is an unreasonable request. Leave not granted. Senator Jack Evans-If the Senate has accepted that Senator Rae's amendment be put- The PRESIDENT —There is no objection. Senator JACK EVANS —I seek leave to move an amendment to Senator Rae's amendment . The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Grimes-We have a motion before the Senate to deal with these Bills now. Again, leave will be granted if the amendment is not debated. The PRESIDENT —I rule that, because a limitation has been imposed by the Senate on the debate, Senator Peter Rae and Senator Jack Evans will be given leave of the Senate only for the purpose of moving their amendments. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(12.33) — by leave-I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Hawke Government should be condemned for presenting a Budget which totally fails to take account of or to provide for the correction of the serious state of the economy, namely, that in Australia- (a) public debt in 1984-85 is estimated to be $90 billion, which involves an average interest bill of $34 per week for each taxpayer; (b) overseas investment is at its lowest level for the past three years; (c) the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast an expected decline of 29 per cent in rural production in the year 1984-85; (d) private fixed capital investment in 1983-84 was 10 per cent lower than in 1982-83; (e) manufacturing production in the June quarter 1984 actually fell by 0.7 per cent, continuing a trend of decreasing growth over the past 18 months; (f) seasonally adjusted retail sales fell by nearly 1 per cent in the three months ended August 1984 compared to the three months ended May 1984; (g) inflationary pressures arising from the indexed increases in government charges and from the fact that average weekly earnings for the 12 month period to the end of June 1984 increased by 12.3 per cent; (h) public sector employment and public sector funded employment has increased drastically while employment in the productive sectors of the economy such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and the associated area of transport has actually fallen by 50 000 during the term of the present Government; (i) Australia's unemployment rate remains above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average; (j) Budget estimates show that this Government's administration costs were increased by 16.7 per cent in 1984-85 which is three times the expected rate of inflation and nearly one-third as high again as the increase in total Government outlays; (k) the Government sector is the main cause of inflation in Australia; and (l) a widespread and justifiable fear exists in relation to severe increases in taxation in the event of the re-election of the Hawke Government'. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.34) —by leave-By way of amendment to Senator Peter Rae's amendment, I move: Leave out all words after ', but the Senate is of the opinion that', insert ' successive Australian Governments from 1975 to 1984 should be condemned, in that : (a) the Fraser Government from 1975 to 1983 pursued economic policies which- (i) by encouraging private foreign borrowings by Australian companies in anticipation of a resources boom, have saddled Australia with a huge foreign debt, (ii) by deliberately allowing unemployment to increase in order to reduce inflation have created a society where over 2 million people are unemployed, under employed or are hidden unemployed, (iii) by deliberately seeking to gain political benefit through creating confrontation and conflict, gained Australia the world reputation of an unstable country torn by industrial strife, and (iv) by pursuing taxation policies designed to win votes created a regime of taxes which are inequitable and stifle individual initiative and enterprise; and (b) the Hawke Government has presented a Budget which fails to take account of or to provide for the correction of the serious state of the economy, namely, that in Australia- (i) public debt in 1984-85 is estimated to be $90 billion, which involves an average interest bill of $34 per week for each taxpayer, (ii) the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast an expected decline of 29 per cent in rural production in the year 1984-85, (iii) manufacturing production in the June quarter 1984 actually fell by 0.7 per cent, continuing a trend of decreasing growth over the past 18 months, and (iv) Australia's unemployment rate remains above the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average'. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, is it possible to wait 15 seconds until we see the amendment? We cannot vote on the matter until we have seen it. The PRESIDENT —The question before the Chair is that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Jack Evans's amendment to Senator Peter Rae's amendment be left out. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I have not seen these amendments. I have not had sight or sound of these amendments. One has been put in my hand now. How am I supposed to vote on the amendment when it has just been put in my hand? This is a farce that has been imposed upon us by the Government and the Australian Democrats in gagging this debate. I am not going to stand for this because there are a number of points that I want to raise in the Committee stage. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Harradine, I call you to order. Senator Harradine —Those matters go to a very major question indeed. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, will you please resume your seat. Senator Harradine —Mr President, those matters- The PRESIDENT —Order! I warn Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine —Mr President, I raise a point of order on what is occurring at this time. Mr President, you are proposing to put a motion to the Senate relating to amendments which honourable senators have not seen. I ask you to rule that this Senate is entitled to have an amendment placed before it in such time that senators can read and absorb the implications of it before they are forced to vote on that amendment. Senator Robert Ray —On a point of order: Senator Harradine is the only one in this chamber who is grandstanding and objecting to leave being granted. It is up to any one of the 64 senators if they have not seen the amendments to come before- Senator Harradine —Leave was not granted to me a while ago and you know it. Senator Robert Ray —It is up to the Senate whether leave should be granted. If Senator Harradine does not want to vote on these amendments-he has not seen them , and there is some justice in the points he makes-he can object to leave being granted and they cannot be moved in those circumstances. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I rise basically to support the rulings that you have made. In my view the position that we are in is one which is difficult for honourable senators, for the reasons that Senator Harradine has mentioned. The fact of the matter is that you are faced with a motion of the Senate, which was opposed by the Opposition, imposing the guillotine. It was supported by the majority of senators-the Government and the Australian Democrats-and we are now faced with the circumstances in which these motions must be put. Mr President, you asked whether the Senate would give leave for a motion which Senator Peter Rae gave very clear warning to the Senate about - Senator Peter Rae —And circulated. Senator Chaney —And circulated during the second reading stage. I think that the Senate was right to give leave to permit what the Government said could occur to occur. I am, therefore, pleased that we will have a chance to vote on Senator Peter Rae's amendment which was moved on behalf of the Opposition. I am not aware of whether the Australian Democrats previously circulated their amendment. To my knowledge they did not. I do think that the difficulty is a very real one when the Democrats have not previously circulated the amendment. However, the fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that the Senate also gave leave to the Australian Democrats to move their amendment to the Rae amendment. In those circumstances there is nothing out of order in our proceeding to vote on the two amendments, which is what I think you, Mr President, had in mind. If I may trespass very modestly on the point of order, the Democrat amendment is clearly unacceptable to the Opposition. We will be opposing it, but I realise I do not have the opportunity to canvass what I regard as the quite outrageous and ridiculous assertions whilst I am on my feet on a point of order. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold Senator Harradine's point of order. Senator Harradine —Pursuant to standing order 429, I object to the ruling or decision that Mr President has given. The PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine, will you put it in writing. Senator Harradine —It is in writing. Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The matter does require immediate determination. I suggest that the Minister for Social Security move accordingly. Senator Grimes(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(12.41) —Under the provisions of standing order 429, I move: That this question requires immediate determination. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.42) — I move: That the ruling of the President be dissented from. Mr President, I have moved this motion with a great deal of diffidence because of my respect for you in the chair and my respect for your rulings. I understand that you have been required to adhere strictly to the letter of the Standing Orders in ruling in the way in which you have. I put it to you and other honourable senators that if the Standing Orders have forced you to rule in the way that you have they are totally inadequate to deal with the situation with which we are now faced. The Senate has before it a motion for the second reading of Appropriation Bill (No. 1), to which the Opposition has moved an amendment. As I understand it, that amendment had been circulated last night and certainly was circulated in the chamber. We have a further amendment to that amendment which has been moved by Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats. It is an amendment to the Opposition's amendment. As honourable senators and you know, Mr President, we did not have that amendment in our hands at the time you put the question to the Senate. I put it to you, Mr President, that it is impossible for honourable senators in this House of review to duly cast a considered vote on an amendment when they are completely ignorant of the subject matter and the terms of the amendment. It is ludicrous for that situation to be imposed upon the Senate. I do not blame Senator Jack Evans for moving his amendment; he is perfectly entitled to move the amendment. The problem is that we are faced with the gag. What occurred last night was a direct attack on the role and responsibility of the Senate as a House of Review and as a States House. I pointed out last night that we are dealing with an appropriation measure which consists of appropriations of billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds. I pointed out that there was a need-- Senator Grimes —I rise on a point of order. With respect to Senator Harradine and his strong feelings on this matter, may I suggest that the subject matter he is talking about now, first of all, is canvassing a decision of the Senate that was made last night and, secondly, is not relevant to the motion that he has moved, which is dissent from your ruling today. The PRESIDENT —I do not uphold the point of order. I think Senator Harradine is entitled to make his case as to the reason why he dissents. Might I say that, in accordance with the sessional Orders, I am required to lift the Senate at quarter to one. Is it the wish of the Senate that this matter be disposed of before we suspend the sitting of the Senate for lunch? Honourable senators-Yes. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That the Senate sit between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. this day. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. We have an arrangement that the Senate will sit between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. to facilitate the debate on legislation within the limits which have been imposed by the Government and the Australian Democrats because of the guillotine. Senator Button —Come on; stop grandstanding. Senator Chaney —If Senator Button paid a little attention to the running of this place it might be very helpful. I make the point that the agreement between the Government and the Opposition was that there would be non-contentious debate at this time. The arrangement was that there would be no divisions, quorums, et cetera. Mr President, the fact is that we are now debating as contentious a motion as we could have, namely, a dissent from your ruling. For all I know, Government and Opposition senators have made arrangements in line with the arrangements that have been publicly entered into between us. I think we have a significant handling problem. I note that the Manager of Government Business seems to agree. I think we need to find some procedure to deal with this matter after 2 p.m. Senator Button —Let the Democrats speak and they can explain it. Senator Chaney —I am not interested in the Democrats actually. I am interested in whether some Opposition senators may not be here for a vote and they would be entitled not to be here for a vote. My suggestion-there might be some better suggestion-is that the dissent motion be stood over until 2 o'clock, or even 3 o 'clock, so that we can resume at a time when honourable senators would expect to have to be here for a vote. Senator Jack Evans —Mr President, on the point of order, I indicate that I shall be withdrawing my amendment in the interests of saving the Chair, Senator Harradine and honourable senators embarrassment. I apologise to the Senate for the late distribution of my amendment. It was entirely my fault. I accept the full responsibility for the late distribution of that amendment. With the leave of the Senate, I withdraw that amendment. Amendment (Senator Jack Evans's)-by leave-withdrawn. Motion (Senator Harradine's)-by leave- withdrawn. Senator Chaney —Mr President, since we will be dividing on this issue I suggest that this matter be stood over until after we have dealt with the matter of public importance this afternoon. It would be in accordance with the arrangements made with the Government. I ask the Government to move in that direction. The PRESIDENT —At the moment the Chair is required, by a determination already made by the Senate, to put the question at 12.30 p.m. If there is an alteration, so be it. Senator Grimes —I will move: That the matter be stood over until after the matter of public importance this afternoon and that the conditions which applied to the guillotine apply at that time. Senator Harradine —I would oppose that motion. I do not know precisely what ' conditions which applied to the guillotine apply at that time' means. I presume that it means there is to be no debate on the amendment. Could that be made clear? The PRESIDENT —That is my ruling already, Senator Harradine. Senator Harradine —I will deal with that at that time. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That the questions with regard to the remaining stages of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and Orders of the Day No. 3 (Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85) and No. 4 (Advance to the Minister for Finance 1983-84: Statement of Expenditure), be postponed until after consideration of the matter of public importance proposed for this day and that the motion for the allotment of time agreed to on 23 October 1984 have effect at that time. Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.52) —The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 that are proposed by the Government repeal sections of the Trade Practices Act and propose alternative provisions to be inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The provisions in the Trade Practices Act-this is really the vital aspect of this legislation-ban secondary boycotts. Instead of having a ban on secondary boycotts, as provided in sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, the new provisions to be inserted in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which I will refer to as the C and A Act, will give the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission jurisdiction to conciliate on secondary boycott disputes involving employers covered by Federal awards or Federal unions. The secondary boycott is an abhorrent industrial tactic. In essence, it is picketing, bans or other industrial action taken by employees of one company to pressure a third party or target company, for example, by preventing the target from obtaining goods from his suppliers or delivering goods to his customers. It does not involve a dispute between employer and employee; it is an attack upon an innocent third party. For this reason it is not capable of resolution by the normal processes of industrial negotiation, conciliation or arbitration. Indeed, it need not involve an industrial issue at all. It is certainly becoming an increasingly popular tool to advance social or political objectives, which we all know too well and from which many of us suffer in this day and age. The secondary boycott strikes at the very heart of our modern, industrialised society by striking at the complex processes of production and distribution in the economy. They can be damaging because they can cause sudden and total financial and business loss to the target. Equally, they can be imposed without any risk of hardship to the people conducting the boycott as the employees who are doing the attacking are not employed by the victim or the target and there is no risk that they might then lose their jobs or be stood down. As I have said, the Government's proposals are to repeal the provisions which were inserted in the Trade Practices Act some years ago by the Fraser Government . They have been most acceptable and most successful. The Government seeks to justify its repeal with two arguments, both of which the Opposition totally rejects. The claim is that section 45D be repealed because, as the Government says in its Green Paper, there is a need to broaden the legal area of exemption or zone of immunity for trade unions. Why on earth should that be so in 1984? There might have been some reason many decades ago for giving some immunity to trade unions. As they have now grown in power, to the extent that they seem more readily able to become above the law in many ways, why on earth is the Government attempting to broaden the area of legal exemption for trade unions? Nothing which the Government could do would be more calculated to weaken the administration of justice and to undermine confidence in the law than to place a powerful institution such as a trade union above the law. The Business Council of Australia made a submission to the Government in relation to this matter in which it said: An important element of Trade Practices Legislation is the principle that persons should be able to conduct their business activities in Australia unimpeded by the conduct of third parties acting in their own interests. To deny persons access to the injunctive and other relief provided by the secondary boycotts provisions because industrial action was involved, would be to deny those persons a fundamental right shared with all other members of the Australian community. The second claim by the Government is that sections 45D and 45E are highly disruptive to Australia's industrial relations and exacerbate disputes. This claim is either intentionally false or very naive. Neither section hits at legitimate union activity and section 45D specifically excludes the application to disputes concerning remuneration or hours of work and conditions. Section 45D was never intended to affect industrial disputes. It is a means of providing assistance to innocent third parties caught up in someone else's dispute. The statistics that have been revealed by the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Bowen, in answer to a question on 21 August this year, also give the lie to the Government's claim. In answer to that question he said that since this section has been in operation 87 cases have been commenced. Of those, 55 have been settled or withdrawn and only six are in fact current. Of those 87 cases, 42 had been heard before a court either upon an application for interim or final relief . All but six had been disposed of by consent of the parties. In the view of the Government there is no substance that this provision has been highly disruptive or has exacerbated disputes. The statistics prove the reverse. The official reason, as I said, does not hold water. Clearly the real reason for this legislation is that the trade union movement demanded the repeal of section 45D as part of the price for signing the prices and incomes accord with the Government. The unions are demanding this repeal not because those sanctions have failed but because they have worked as an effective restraint upon trade union power and its abuse by militant unions such as the Builders Labourers Federation, the Seamen's Union of Australia or the Transport Workers Union. The point is that the sections have been remarkably successful in curbing illegitimate union activity, and that is why the unions want them repealed. Because secondary boycotts are against the third party, and not traditional employer-employee disputes, no amount of negotiation or conciliation before the Arbitration Commission can be of assistance. Nevertheless, the Government's plan is to give power to the Commission to conciliate. But the plan has three flaws. The Commission will be able only to conciliate; it will not be able to arbitrate in a binding or enforceable way. The Arbitration Commission is specifically denied a role in conciliating non-industrial secondary boycott issues. Increasingly, as I have said, secondary boycott disputes are directed towards achieving political, social and other non-industrial ends. It is also significant that the Arbitration Commission will not be able to insert a bans clause in an award of a union to prohibit it from continuing a secondary boycott action. The Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) conceded this in his second reading speech when he said: It may be unrealistic . . . to expect the Commission to play a role in overcoming a boycott which has an explicitly political basis such as a ban in protest against aspects of Government policy. As I have said, that is an increasing use of the secondary boycott in order to achieve those purposes. By repealing these sections of the Trade Practices Act the Government is conscientiously and deliberately removing the only means of countering these boycotts conducted against Australian government policy or against a foreign government's policy. At the same time the Government is ensuring the proliferation of those boycotts. Just as absurd is the fact that the Arbitration Commission will be able to conciliate only in disputes involving employers covered by Federal awards or involving Federal unions. The vast majority of businesses in this country operate within the State industrial jurisdiction and, of course, their employees are covered by State awards. Most insidious of all, the Government will remove from employers their traditional rights under common law to seek protection against union boycotts. They will not be able to obtain an injunction while a secondary boycott is under dispute in the Arbitration Commission. As I have said, the point of all this is that the present legislation works and the only reason the Government seeks to change it is because it has worked so effectively. Damages or fines under the section have never been imposed. The statistics which I gave earlier reveal the success in which these matters have been resolved at an early stage and by agreement, with no damages or fines ever being imposed. No final and permanent injunction has had to be made. The disputes have been settled after the imposition of interim injunctions. In the vast majority of cases-this is why I say that the Minister's arguments are so misleading-the threat of that has led to the abandonment of a boycott without an injunction having been made, and certainly not an absolute injunction. The statistics which I have mentioned in regard to the effectiveness of the section have also been supported by a poll undertaken recently by the Confederation of Australian Industry. That body examined 25 boycott disputes in which action had been initiated after January 1983. Each company was asked: 'Do you believe your action in initiating trade practices proceedings under this section materially assisted in the resolution of the dispute?' Some 18 of the 25 companies which were polled answered unequivocally yes. One answered with a qualified yes, and there was no answer from six. Of those 19 who answered, 18 unequivocally affirmed that the action they took in initiating proceedings under this section materially assisted the resolution of the dispute. The Opposition is implacably opposed to this legislation to repeal these vitally important sections of the Trade Practices Act banning secondary boycotts . It believes that is the only satisfactory way of tackling this threat to our society-which these disputes are-and the amendments proposed by the Government to put some conciliatory process into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act simply will not work. They are a pathetic and weak capitulation to the militant trade unions which have extracted this unworthy promise from the Government as their price for entering into the prices and incomes accord. As I said, the Opposition will vote against the second reading of both these Bills. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(1.02) —The Australian Democrats have considered the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 and have endeavoured, over a period of months, to find a resolution to what amounts to a philosophical difference between the Government and the Australian Democrats in the approach to this legislation. The philosophical difference is a very fundamental one. We can see no justification for legislation which tolerates or even encourages secondary boycotts. Our concern is that whilst a secondary boycott is an industrial weapon which under certain circumstances some people might feel is an acceptable means of persuading people in an industrial dispute, to us, and I believe to the vast majority of Australians, it is a weapon which brings an innocent third party into an industrial dispute quite unnecessarily and quite unjustly. Although the third party may be brought in legally, at certain stages of that dispute, there may be quite serious legal repercussions to the injured party which will therefore provide some degree of remedy and power to the individual or group endeavouring to stop the industrial dispute from being exacerbated in this way. For some months the Australian Democrats, in good faith, have been talking with representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, representatives of a variety of business organisations, large and small, and with representatives of enterprises which have been involved in secondary boycotts or which have suffered from secondary boycotts. We recognise that there are several types of secondary boycott and this is one of the problems that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) had in drafting into his proposed legislation this alternative means of tackling a secondary boycott. A straight out industrial boycott which is aimed at putting pressure on an employer to bring about-from an employee's point of view-better conditions for the employee group involved in the primary dispute probably does need to be handled under the conciliation and arbitration system but not necessarily under that Act. It may be possible to deal with it under separate legislation. When one gets to a secondary boycott which is non-industrial-an economic boycott or a political boycott-one has a very difficult position which probably cannot be satisfactorily resolved under a conciliation and arbitration system. It will probably need to be taken out of that system so that it can be handled through other courts. Partly because of that, but in the end principally because of the unwillingness of the Minister to budge at all in looking at a number of alternatives that have been put to him by industry representatives- representatives of the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia and many others-the Australian Democrats have been put into the position that we will have no alternative but to reject outright the proposals in this legislation. We will do so unhesitatingly, without any qualms of conscience, because we know that we will be protecting a very vulnerable group. Such a group includes people in small businesses who, if they become the targets of a secondary boycott, are likely to suffer not just a brief economic setback but could suffer annihilation. When two powerful industrial monsters take each other on, when the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union and Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd decide to take each other on, they have all the resources and all the back up to cope with a secondary boycott which may last for days, weeks or months. But when a small business becomes the target of a secondary boycott one tackles a very vulnerable sector of the business community. One does not put just the owner of that business in jeopardy. One puts all of that enterprise's employees in jeopardy. There is no provision in the proposed legislation to protect people who are put into that position. Regrettably the alternatives to sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act , as proposed by the Minister, simply give access in the first instance to a conciliation system. This means sitting around the table and having a chat- nobody would have any power to arbitrate-in the hope that something good will come out of it. That is fine if the person who was subjected to that sort of pressure was not in the vulnerable position of having to expect an instant decision. But if such a person were expected to sit around a table for days and weeks while more and more pressure is put on him, obviously he would be at a very distinct disadvantage in an industrial dispute in which he has no wish or reason to be involved. To take away from that person the right to civil action, the right of access to common law and the rights of tort, would be grossly unjust unless one were able to put in its place something which had equal rights in particular for the small business which was subject to such an attack and such a threat. This legislation makes no such provision. This legislation simply accedes to the demands of the ACTU which made it quite clear prior to the last election that it expected those demands to be met by a Labor Government if it were elected. This piece of legislation is ostensibly the Government meeting the promise it made to the ACTU. I say 'ostensibly' because there is a suspicion in the minds of a lot of people that on this very last day of this Parliament we should have this legislation, controversial as it is, being forced through the Parliament with no possibility of amending it because the House of Representatives has risen. It has been presented to the Senate on a take it or leave it basis and this makes one suspect that may be the Government does not want it passed anyway. Possibly all that it is doing is paying lip service to a promise it made to the ACTU that it would introduce this legislation within the term of this Parliament. The Government would know that if it were passed the Australian Labor Party would be hounded around Australia by every business organisation, every small businessman, every medium businessman and every large business enterprise in Australia throughout the total term of this election campaign. I am sure that the Government does not wish to bring that sort of attack upon itself. Therefore, I suspect that when we divide on this legislation later today secretly in their heart of hearts the people who support it will be hoping that the numbers are on the side of those who oppose it. It would be very damaging to some honourable members and in particular some Ministers to have to go out to the electorate and face up to the small businessman and small businesswoman around Australia and say: 'We have now made you vulnerable. We have repealed 45D and 45E. Secondary boycotts are now on for anybody. Any union in the country may want to add a little muscle to the pressure that it is exerting on the organisation or the enterprise with which it has its primary dispute and you will be the weapon that it will use Mr or Mrs small business person'. That approach is not acceptable in the community at large. It is certainly not acceptable to small businesses. It is not acceptable to any business person in this country and it is not acceptable to the Australian Democrats. For those reasons, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, I indicate that we will be voting against the repeal provisions. I understand that when they have fallen to the ground the rest of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act amendments will not proceed. Therefore we will revert to the status quo. Frankly that is not the best possible world for any of us but it is certainly a far better world than the alternative which has been presented to us today by the Government. The world that has been presented to us today gives all to the unions and nothing to the small businesses which could be the subject of secondary boycotts. The Government should have a clear and concise message from the Australian Democrats. The repeal of sections 45D and 45E is not on as long as the Australian Democrats have the balance of power in this Parliament, unless an alternative is found which provides the same safeguards for small businesses as those that are in the existing provisions. Judging by the Minister's comments, there is no real desire on the part of the Government to find that solution, therefore I suspect that sections 45D and 45E will remain on the statute book for many years. That is regrettable because there may be better alternatives, if people from the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party were allowed to have some input into finding a solution. However, that does not seem to be the way this Government wants to work, so it will sacrifice its legislation on sections 45D and 45E today. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(1.17) —I will direct my remarks to the essential matters in relation to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 in the short time that is available to me. The amendments to the Trade Practices Act under this piece of legislation are primarily designed to remove sections 45D and 45E from the Act. These two sections represent perhaps the most effective deterrent to secondary boycott action and, indeed, the only real sanction against such action that exists. Their removal by the Labor Government clearly illustrates that it will go to any lengths to appease the trade union movement with the excuse of preserving the prices and incomes accord-an arrangement which well serves the trade unions in maintaining high levels of wages at the expense of the unemployed in Australia. The statement of accord between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in February last year agreed that as a matter of priority a Labor government should: . . . encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. A year later, in February 1984, the Government released a discussion paper containing its proposals to amend the Trade Practices Act, including repealing sections 45D and 45E. With regard to this paper and specifically sections 45D and 45E, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his speech to the Commercial Law Association told us: The Government is hoping . . . to obtain considerable public comment . . . before any legislation is drafted for introduction in the autumn 1984 parliamentary session. From all indications the Government received comments on its proposal to repeal sections 45D and 45E and certainly the business community was totally opposed to the Government's actions in this area. There is no indication, however, that the Government gave any weight to private sector views on this matter. During a recent edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's program AM , Sir Arvi Parbo, head of the Business Council of Australia, was asked whether relations between the business community and the Labor Government would deteriorate as a result of the removal of sections 45D and 45E. Sir Arvi Parbo replied that the relationship would be affected and would be soured 'to that extent'. He then said: We have a very good case to put to the Government and we certainly hope that the Government will listen to this, but if they don't, of course we feel that some of the good relationship would have been affected by it. We now have proof in this legislation of just how far the Government is prepared to put into practice the rhetoric of consensus. The Government's entire Budget strategy is dependent on a strong recovery of the business sector, but it is not prepared to heed the views of that sector when they conflict with the wishes of the trade union movement. The effective use of the secondary boycott is a result of the interdependence of the processes of production and distribution, particularly in modern industries. Very great pressure can be brought to bear upon target employers through action directed against their suppliers or customers. Secondary boycotts also have the attraction that they can be imposed with little hardship for the boycotters themselves. However, a secondary boycott can result in serious damage to an employer who is not involved directly in any industrial dispute because it has been selected as a suitable instrument by a union with which to apply pressure on that target employer. The report of the Trade Practices Act Review Committee in 1976 noted that those affected by secondary boycott actions had no recourse, apart from this: Some common law actions in tort which might, in theory, be available, but these are in most cases dead letters in practice. The Committee therefore recommended that provision should be made in the law for the trader directly affected by the secondary boycott to have access to an independent deliberative body, pointing out its belief: The trader who is the object of the employees' action should not simply have the choice of toeing the line or suffering substantial damage or, in some cases, going out of business. He too is entitled to have his 'day in court'. Subsequently section 45D was inserted into the Trade Practices Act by the coalition Government in 1977 to prevent secondary boycotts which would cause, or be likely to have the effect of causing, substantial damage to the business of a particular corporation or of lessening the competition in the market in which that particular corporation operated. In 1978 the section was strengthened to prohibit boycotts which would have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of preventing or substantially hindering a third person from engaging in interstate or international trade. The legislation was further strengthened by the coalition Government in 1980 by the addition of section 45E to, and I quote: . . . prohibit a person from agreeing with a union to cease to continue to deal with an individual or an individual company, or to continue to deal with an individual or individual company only on new conditions restricting that person' s freedom of trade. The Government has put forward several arguments for repealing sections 45D and 45E. In its discussion paper this year the first argument that is proposed for the removal of the sections is that they 'have never been accepted by the trade union movement, and they are not designed to resolve the underlying issues which give rise to the secondary boycott activity'. Surely the non-acceptance by the trade union movement of legislation which effectively deters the secondary boycott action is simply the manifestation of its discontent at being deprived of such a powerful weapon. The Government has capitulated and has subjected itself to the imposts of the trade union movement in fulfilling its blackmail conditions of last year's accord. It has now agreed to remove sections 45D and 45E because they are effective in blunting the muscle of the trade union movement. The discussion paper describes sections 45D and 45E as: A weapon to frustrate the bargaining power of the trade unions. The Attorney-General has also described these sections as 'blunt weapons of industrial relations warfare'. Implicit in these statements is an assumption that it is legitimate for the unions to invoke secondary boycotts to pursue ends outside normal industrial aims. This is contrary to the claims of the discussion paper, which were reiterated in the Minister's second reading speech, that the Government 'does not condone the industrial tactics of secondary boycotts'. That is an absolute contradiction in terms. I conclude by giving just one very clear example of the effects of sections 45D and 45E, and the cost of secondary boycotts. This example of the cost of a secondary boycott was given by the Australian Chamber of Shipping in referring to an industrial dispute in August 1983 which resulted in the delay of the vessel Carla A. Hills. The daily fixed costs and variable costs of the vessel were $US7,000 a day. Furthermore, had the vessel not been able to sail by a certain date, another vessel would have had to be chartered at a cost of $US88, 000. In that case, the ship owners applied for an injunction under section 45D on Monday, 15 August, which was granted two days later and the ship was able to sail on Thursday, 18 August. One wonders what the outcome would have been under this Government's proposed legislation-had the dispute been notified to the Commission on the Monday, the only certainty would be that the Commission would have started proceedings within 48 hours. In essence, the removal of sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act without any provision being made for an effective alternative will give carte blanche to any militant union to pursue its ends by involving innocent third parties to cause as much economic disruption as possible. There will be no effective sanction to prevent these actions. If the Government does not, as it claims, condone secondary boycotts it can have no justification for removing legislation which has essentially worked in providing a legal framework for dealing with them. One can only draw the conclusion that the agreement between the ACTU and the Government to remove sections 45D and 45E, as part of the accord, was to give the trade union movement a free hand and greater muscle in imposing its will and its wishes on the community. We hear much about consensus, but when this Government asks for full and complete discussion, co-operation and consideration of this matter on the part of the business sector and the trade union movement with the Government itself, it completely ignores the business sector and the private sector and pursues headlong its course in seeking to remove section 45D and section 45E from the Act, simply and only to placate the trade union movement and to continue to be assured that the accord will hang together. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(1.25) —The Senate is debating the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984 in the face of great difficulties. This is important legislation that affects the whole of the industrial life of Australia and, therefore, the standards of living of everyone. The Australian Democrats, that genteel branch of the Australian Labor Party, have rebelled against the traditions of this place by supporting the moving of a gag and a guillotine. We expect the Labor Party to do that, but at least the Labor Party does not get up on the hustings of this country and promise that it will not do it. The Democrats have promised many times that they would never gag or guillotine debate. But when the Labor Party crooks its little finger, they come running and their principles disappear . These Bills set out to remove the prohibition on secondary boycotts contained in section 45D and section 45E of the Trade Practices Act. I oppose these Bills to the limits of my resources, as does every business enterprise and every person who knows what is involved in these Bills. A boycott arises when one or more persons refuse to deal with another person or company, when they refuse to supply goods or services. A secondary boycott arises when one group of people causes another group to refuse to deal with the target of the boycott. Strikes are bad enough, but sometimes-very rarely-they can be justified. Secondary boycotts never can be justified. They are the most repugnant form of strike action by a union. The targets are always innocent parties because the targets are not involved in the dispute. It is the very worst form of mob rule and bullying that the Labor Party and the union movement can get up to. In every civilised country secondary boycotts have been banned for many years. In Australia, because of the monopoly position of the unions, we were very late in coming to the position where we banned secondary boycotts. It was not until 1977 that the Fraser Government moved to ban secondary boycotts by introducing section 45D and section 45E to the Act. That was the greatest industrial relations achievement of the Fraser Government. The great failing of the Fraser Government was that it did not completely clean up the industrial relations mess . We desperately need to do two things. The first is to break the monopoly of unions in the supply of labour. Secondly, we need to bring unions within the ambit of the law. The great expectation of the community in 1975 when it elected the Fraser Government was that this great mess of industrial relations would be cleaned up for the benefits of all of Australia. Probably one of the principal reasons why the Fraser Government lost office was that it failed to follow through, after having started so well by bringing in section 45D. There would be no one in this chamber who does not recall all the misinformation and scare stories put out by the Labor Party and the unions when section 45D was proposed. They said it would be chaotic; that industrial relations would be unworkable. What was the truth? Since that law has been passed, secondary boycotts have been totally banned. It has worked brilliantly. Secondary boycotts are unjustified; they are unfair; they are a denial of natural justice. If I have a dispute with a person or company it is not reasonable or justifiable for me to be attacked by a third party, to be sent broke, to be not able to go about my normal lawful occasions-and that is what a secondary boycott does. These Bills proposing to remove secondary boycott legislation place all industry at risk-particularly overseas shipping and aviation, in which very high costs and delays to service are involved. Only a month or two ago, aircraft of Continental Airlines coming into Australia were subjected to a secondary boycott-something on which the Labor Government did not have the backbone to apply the law and to clean the matter up at the time. Continental Airlines went bankrupt about 12 months ago. It managed to reform and regroup and to re-engage some of its staff at lower salaries. Because they were engaged at lower salaries, some American unions were imposing bans and having disputes with the airline. Refuellers and other workers-I suppose it would be the Transport Workers Union-placed black bans on the airline in Australia. That is a very good example of a secondary boycott, and it illustrates the way that the party applying the ban had no interest in it at all. There was not one Australian employee of the airline involved. There were no grounds for dispute with anyone in Australia. Yet that airline and its commercial operations were subjected to this most unreasonable, most unfair and, one might say, most cowardly action. Quite obviously, this legislation is being brought in to appease the unions, but it is causing people such as Senator Gietzelt an acute case of schizophrenia . Members of the Labor Party have a pact with the unions to remove any sort of legal control from the union movement. But, at the same time, as parliamentarians, they know very well that it is suicide to be talking about that and bringing in a Bill like this on the eve of a premature, unnecessary, half-life election. But the unions are pressing the Government. They are screwing it because they do not trust Robert James Lee Hawke any more than does the Australian community. Mr Hawke might be high on the popularity polls, but the majority of Australians believe they are being set up in some way by this Government. The union movement, pushing for the removal of the legislation, is exactly of the same mind. It wants the contract now; it wants its pound of flesh ; it wants it today. It is demanding it from the Labor Party, because the Labor Party in office is nothing more than the parliamentary wing of the union movement. Secondary boycotts have special characteristics. Two of the chief ones are that they cannot be solved in the normal way that strikes can be resolved, and that they are not often industrial in origin-they are usually directed towards social or political goals. None of the reasons advanced by the Government carries any weight in support of the legislation. The principal reason is the need to broaden the legal area of exemption or the zone of immunity for trade unions. Why are unions above the law? Why do we not do what Margaret Thatcher did in Britain and bring the unions back within the law? Australia's union movement is very much based on the archaic craft unions of Britain, with their ethos of a dog in the manger attitude to society, operating with bully-boy standover tactics whenever they can. But the unions in Australia believe they should not be answerable for any of the damages they cause society. They believe that they should live beyond the rule of law. I do not accept that. We all should live by a rule of law, otherwise the law of the jungle will apply in this country. If we have a rule of law, everyone is subjected to it. A basic part of that legal system is that individuals can seek redress for any injuries caused to them by someone else. If a union causes distress or injury, whether it is emotional, financial or physical, the person who has been disadvantaged by that should have the right to recover damages. In years gone by, we have tried to fine unions when they do not obey the law, but that has not worked because we end up creating martyrdoms, as we did with Clarrie O'Shea. But the principle nevertheless is correct. We have to change the approach. We need legislation to allow persons disadvantaged by strike action to recover damages from the unionists. I give an example that would work. If we had an electricity strike and people lost all the food they had in their deep freezers and in their fridges, I believe that all the people who lost food should be able to sue the unionist of their choice. We should forget about the union secretaries. The little old pensioners who are hurt most of all should be able to go along and obtain legal aid, pick on any unionist who is on strike, take him through the courts and recover damages. If that principle were widespread, and it accords with the Australian system of justice, of course, we would find that a lot more unionists would grow up and realise that they have a responsibility to the community. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Government to do that, because the Government must protect the public interest. In conclusion, I wish to comment on the real fear which is building in Australia about the Hawke Government. There is a real fear that this country is moving more and more under the control of the union bosses and the union organisations. The prices and incomes accord is seen as a sell-out to the unions . People know that if the union movement has sold out to the Government for the price of an accord the other part of the deal will have to be that more power passes to the unions. Two weeks ago in the Age newspaper Max Walsh closed an article about the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button-I regret that he is not in the chamber at the moment-with two paragraphs that have great relevance to what is going on in Australia today. He said: If the existing industrial movement gains the sort of policy input it is attempting to do, then the spectre of State corporatism really begins to take on substance. Such corporatism where big government, big business and big unions combine to protect what they perceive as the comfort of the status quo was a feature of Mussolini's Italy and Peron's Argentina-both, incidentally charismatic regimes. The description of these corporate states fits exactly the corporate state into which we are moving-a state of big government, big business and big unions under the charismatic leadership of Mr Hawke. This is bad legislation. It fails to protect the public interest. It gives in to and increases the power of a group of people who are not answerable in any way at all to the Australian community. I oppose it. Senator HILL(South Australia)(1.37) —The Senate is looking at a package of Bills which, if passed, would: Firstly, repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act; secondly, provide the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with certain additional conciliation powers in relation to secondary boycotts; and thirdly, prohibit common law action for an injunction while conciliation was proceeding. Sections 45D and 45E prohibit secondary boycotts and agreements giving effect to secondary boycotts. Secondary boycotts most often consist of picketing, bans and/or other industrial action against a third party which prevent the target delivering his goods to his customers or obtaining goods from his suppliers. It is an application of industrial muscle to be used by unions where industrial action directly against the target by the employees or their union would be ineffective. In other words, it is an action against a third party who is not a party to the dispute, but where in some way action against the third party would cause the party to the dispute to capitulate. Therefore, it is obvious that in many cases the third party is an innocent party and would be incidentally harmed. The Fraser Government, therefore, chose to prohibit secondary boycotts as an unfair application of industrial muscle. It did so, firstly, because they detrimentally affected innocent parties, as I have indicated and, secondly, because they were not examples of industrial disputation capable of conciliation by the parties, because the parties were not in fact the parties to the industrial dispute. In doing so no doubt the Fraser Government was conscious of the fact that secondary boycotts were often in breach of common law, the so- called industrial torts. However, common law, as we know, has not always offered an effective recourse in this field. We know this because the report of the Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee brought it to our attention. So in some ways the Fraser Government was looking to facilitate the operation of common law principles. Therefore, the Fraser Government moved that this form of industrial conduct should be effectively banned. There can be no real doubt that the injunction procedure that was provided by means of these provisions of the Trade Practices Act has proven most effective. We know that other sanctions have been provided under the legislation, but it is worth noting that the recourse to penalties and to damages has not proven necessary. The methodology of including such provisions under the Trade Practices Act has always irked the union movement. The rationale of the former Government was that the conduct of unions imposing secondary boycotts was beyond that of industrial relations and beyond that of appropriate industrial relations legislation. It was more akin to an abuse of monopoly power or action that is taken that has an effect of restraint of trade and it was, therefore, more appropriate to be placed under the trade practices legislation. But the real question should not be: What is the appropriate head of power under which these provisions should be situate? Rather it should be that prohibiting secondary boycotts is desirable. The Government is purporting to act pursuant to its obligations under its agreement with the unions, the so-called wages and incomes accord, the deal which it entered into before the last election. That accord provides inter alia: The Government will encourage the settlement of disputes between employers and unions by conciliation and without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions. It has been understood that the repeal of sections 45D and 45E is part of the Government's obligation under that bargain. I would agree, the Opposition would agree, that the settlement of disputes without recourse to legislative or common law penal sanctions is desirable. It goes to the spirit of the conciliation and arbitration legislation which we have and which we support. But we on this side of the chamber differ with members of the Australian Labor Party in a number of aspects. Firstly, it is implicit in the Government's package that secondary boycotts are a legitimate weapon to be used in industrial disputes. We disagree. We say that we must have a workable system and there must be limits on the action which either party can take. Secondary boycotts go beyond the standard of reasonable industrial behaviour. They go over the line. Secondly, we on this side recognise that some unions simply will not be talked out of engaging in irresponsible activities. That does not mean that all unions are irresponsible. Most of them are, in fact, responsible. But history shows us that there are those which will indulge in secondary boycotts and they tend to be those of the militant and unreasonable variety. One has only to reflect upon the Builders Labourers Federation in the scissor lifts case and the Seamen's Union of Australia in the Utah case. We say that a responsible government must be prepared to provide a system which includes sanctions to ensure that those who only respond to sanctions are forced to behave responsibly. However, with this Government we see, probably because of its indebtedness to the union movement, an imbalanced attitude towards industrial relations. On the one hand, the Government has looked to increased and more rigorous regulation of business conduct, greater enforcement powers and higher sanctions. Yet on the other hand, if we look at the ALP's industrial relations policy we see the removal of the 'paints and penalties' provision from industrial legislation; the repeal of provisions for penalties upon industrial action; the repeal of all penalties directed at unions and unionists; the exemption of unions from the Trade Practices Act; and limited immunity of unions and unionists from civil liability for damage caused by industrial action. This package is part of the implementation of the Government's policy undertaking. As such it shows an attitude which we on this side of the chamber say is dangerously out of balance. Mr Alan Stockdale, in an Institute of Public Affairs review, said: The Hawke Government is moving Australia to a pattern of industrial relations in which legal sanctions are imposed on employers but unions are above any legally enforceable restraint. Already there is a perception that the arbitration system is unbalanced in favour of unions. This has tended to undermine public support for the system. Public confidence in the system is essential. Further removal of restraints on the exercise of union power will result in a further loss of that confidence. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Labor Party could do nothing more effective in ulti- mately destroying the arbitration system in this country than continuing its policy of placing unions beyond the law. Similarly, to provide a system whereby there is not legislative restraint with effective sanctions on irresponsible unions will lead the community at large to regard all unions with hostility. The short-sighted attitude of this Government is threatening the industrial relations system and the public standing of responsible trade unions. The Government's responsibility in relation to secondary boycotts goes even further. One of the roles of law in a liberal democratic society is to prevent private coercion. The secondary boycott provisions in the Trade Practices Act in this field achieve that goal. But they are not to be replaced by an effective alternative. In fact, as I indicated at the outset of these brief remarks, the amendments would prohibit common law action for an injunction while conciliation was proceeding. That, of course, could be for a very long time. Therefore, because of the Government's package of legislation, not only is the individual losing a statutory protection but also the Government is depriving him of his traditional common law protection. I would have thought that that action should not gain this Government wide applause. The Government has missed the essential point about sections 45D and 45E which is that the provisions are not designed to resolve the underlying issues which give rise to secondary boycott activity but to limit such activity and to stop innocent parties from becoming entangled in an industrial dispute. All the evidence therefore suggests that this legislation which is being presented today has little merit. It is an attempt by the Labor Government to meet its commitment to the Australian Council of Trade Unions under the prices and incomes accord, whether or not such action is in the best interests of the community as a whole. The case that the Government has put forward is unconvincing and this legislation should therefore be defeated by the Senate. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(1.48) —Secondary boycotts are a particularly offensive form of union power. They involve not a dispute directly between a worker and his employer but rather workers in other industries and other employers. An obnoxious feature of secondary boycotts is the selection of an innocent target employer. It is possible that the boycotting union may not even have any members employed in the target company or by the target employer. By adopting such a tactic, a union which has no legitimate industrial dispute with the target company can cause loss of wages to employees and economic hardship to the employer through tactics such as picketing and interruptions to deliveries and supplies. The Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984, the prime purpose of which removes secondary boycott provisions from the Trade Practices Act, reflects the Hawke Government's cave-in to big, militant unions including the Builders Labourers Federation. The Fraser Government's introduction of sections 45D and 45E in 1977 and 1980 respectively was welcomed by both employers and the public. Both groups had suffered detrimental effects of secondary boycotts. The legislative prohibition of this form of industrial action would never have been enacted were it not deemed necessary in those years. The fact that it was necessary is an indictment of trade union movement action. Trade unions have enjoyed decades, if not centuries, of sympathetic legislation which legitimises their inconveniences and the financial losses which result from their industrial action. Indeed, Australia's absence of reasonable legislation against trade unions has meant that we have been held in awesome regard by other industrialised nations, especially since 1969 when the Clarrie O'Shea incident made the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act completely useless and ineffective. Unfortunately, trade unions have been carried away with the power and scope which has been given to them. Now the Labor Government intends to sanction an especially unfair form of industrial action. Employers are now in a no-win situation. Employers could be put into a situation whereby there was a disincentive for them to invest in the economy. It is no wonder that the employers are very concerned about the potential for petty disruptive tactics which do such disproportionate damage to the employers. It is hard to dispute the reasonableness of being able to obtain an interim injunction which requires unions to lift their bans while a dispute is being negotiated. The reasonableness of that is obvious to everyone. The Government has also claimed that sections 45D and 45E are not an effective means of resolving disputes. What utter rubbish. Why would employers pursue that course of action if it was inevitably deemed to fail? The Government's claim is quite incomprehensible, considering that employers, too, must suffer a financial loss. Indeed, employers agree that the combination of the injunction mechanism and the potential for the awarding of damages under sections 45D and 45E have been instrumental in resolving union-instigated conflict. Sections 45D and 45E have reduced the disadvantages employers encounter in the industrial area. Frequently the boycotting union, as I said earlier, is not even in dispute with the employer. Therefore, the repeal of these sections will leave employers without any form of redress other than conciliation, which further consolidates the unions' privileged position and the employers' helplessness. Apart from concluding that most injunctions in 1983 examined by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations had little or no effect in quelling secondary boycott actions, the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is devoid of any further substantiation of the Government's case. The avenues for misinterpretation left open by this bland Government assertion for those not fully versed in the industrial relations gamut prompted the Confederation of Australian Industry to conduct an independent survey of its own. The survey population was composed of all employers who had utilised sections 45D and 45E with the aim of resolving conflict. Eighteen out of the 20 employers surveyed responded affirmatively to the following question: Do you believe your action in initiating trade practices proceedings materially assisted in the resolution of the dispute? The two exceptions were firstly, an employer whose company was in receivership and secondly, an employer who gave a qualified answer. Further results are forthcoming. Significantly, it was also ascertained that when unions perceived an imminent injunction due to the lodging of a section 45D application by an employer, the secondary boycott was lifted. In other cases, where injunctions were granted and bans were lifted, employers still unanimously maintained that the method of dispute solving under sections 45D and 45E was instrumental and effective. The losses employers suffered from secondary boycotts are quite substantial. They include the total immobilisation of operations, the potential for stopping all sales, interruption to deliveries of services and goods and reputation damage. Despite these disastrous consequences, all respondents but two attempted extensive negotiations or initiated discussion with the unions concerned before proceeding with injunction measures. Many disputes lasted weeks or even months before injunctions were sought. These two points highlight the remarkable tolerance for industrial action, despite the knowledge of the inevitable financial loss. Australia has too many unions. Their unchecked proliferation has consequently produced a multitude of demarcation disputes from which business people and government, through their economic repercussions, all bear their burden. The Builders Labourers Federation has been a notorious user of boycott action. I repeat: Employers use trade practices measures only as a last resort. There is not one case of a union being fined or damages awarded against a union. In fact, unions have respected the rulings of the court, and this has helped in the resolution of industrial disputes. No one is advocating repression. I am certainly not doing that. All that is being advocated is a retention of the legislation which alleviates the dislocation coming from a particularly nasty form of industrial action, or industrial weapon. The Government has formerly acknowledged the relevance of and indeed the necessity for an employer to have the redress opportunities that sections 45D and 45E provide. Employers are always stigmatised and alienated in the industrial sphere, despite the fact that they are an integral feature. This demonstrates the appropriateness of a mechanism by which employers can instigate action instead of always being on the receiving end. Yet, despite formal recognition of this industrial imbalance, this Government has proceeded to support its case by arguing per se that sections 45D and 45E were being used for purposes wider than was originally intended and which were not consistent with the intent of the Trade Practices Act. Complementary legislation which was to offset the removal of sections 45D and 45E from the Trade Practices Act and hence simultaneously rectify this legislative inconsistency and employer discrimination has not really eventuated. The plans within this legislation are far from satisfactory. Thus, under the conceptual framework of the amendments, employer actions remain an illegitimate industrial activity. These glaring omissions and commissions render opposition to the amendments essential if industrial justice is ever to be done. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(1.57) —In this debate I hope to outline some principles which need to be referred to as a framework for our consideration of the measures currently before us, that is, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill. I will outline these principles and I will conclude that these measures should at least be able to pass into the Committee stage so that consideration can be given then to overcoming the major problem that has been perceived by most of the speakers and the major deficiency of the legislation currently before us. I think we would all agree that the area for settlement of industrial disputes should be one for experts, that is to say, for the body specifically established under the provisions of the Australian Constitution so to do, namely, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the respective State industrial commissions. Much concern has been expressed that the current measures enable unions to utilise illegitimate tactics for the purposes of advancing non-industrial issues-issues which, in the words of Senator Jack Evans , are of an economic or political character. I have listened very carefully to Senator Jack Evans and I intend at the Committee stage to present amendments which would ensure that matters of an industrial character and arising out of industrial matters are dealt with by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the respective State tribunal. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I inform the Senate that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) will be absent from the chamber this afternoon. Any questions normally directed to the Attorney-General in relation to his portfolio or those he represents should be directed to me. PENSIONS: ASSETS TEST Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security and I refer to the ban which came into force yesterday on field officer visits to pensioners and beneficiaries who will be affected by the assets test. Is this decision and the decision to post out the assets test forms two weeks early an attempt to camouflage the true intrusive nature of the Government's assets test? What input into these decisions has the Minister had? Was he advised of them before instructions were drawn up and sent out to all State directors and regional offices? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the first part of Senator Messner's question is no. I was advised-I think some two weeks ago but I will have to check that-by the Director-General of Social Security that he intended to restrict the visits of field officers to the homes of pensioners during the data collection on the assets test from the date on which the forms were to go out. He decided, with his colleagues, to do this for two reasons. The first was to reassure pensioners that officers of the Department will not be visiting homes to value or check valuations of home contents and personal effects. I have stated that in this place and outside it many times because of situations, in New South Wales in particular, where unscrupulous confidence men-I suppose that is what one calls them although there are much worse words one can use-were going into homes of pensioners claiming to be inspectors for this purpose. The second reason was to ensure that field officer resources are available to meet requests from pensioners for help with the assets test during the time that these large numbers of forms were sent out. I repeat what I have said here many times: Inspectors will not be visiting people's homes to inspect their personal effects or the contents of their homes. If a person goes to a pensioner's door and claims to be there for that purpose, the pensioner should realise that he is not from the Department of Social Security and should contact the police or neighbours, but certainly should not allow him to enter the home. The need to reassure pensioners was believed necessary because of misleading media reports about officers of the Department entering homes and because of reports of these bogus officers visiting pensioners' homes. The people who have been fuelling these reports have been acting in a way detrimental to the benefit of pensioners . The course suggested by the Director-General and agreed to by me was aimed at assisting pensioners and easing any misgivings they may have. The reason for the pensioner forms going out early, as Senator Messner describes it, was that the development of the forms, the letters and the machinery whereby this procedure could go ahead went much more smoothly than we expected, both in the Department of Social Security and in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Some weeks ago I announced that the forms would go out 10 days or so earlier than we originally expected. Senator Messner and his colleagues can make what they like of that decision. The simple fact is that the procedure is working smoothly. The decision of the Director-General of Social Security was in fact to facilitate that situation and to assist pensioners, and not for any other reason. Senator MESSNER —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister's remarks seem to imply that the Director-General took the action he did, with or without the Minister's direction, in order to protect the public against bogus inspectors. I ask: Is it a fact that legitimate field officers have identity cards and are required to produce those to pensioners in the normal course of their duties? If that is so, how is it there was a need to take the kind of action which apparently the Director-General has taken? Senator GRIMES —I repeat that the decision was made for two reasons. The first reason was as Senator Messner stated. The second reason was to ensure that field officer resources are able to meet requests by pensioners who may have some difficulties with the assets test. Certainly, officers of the Department of Social Security in this position have identity cards. Unfortunately, those who would take advantage of the existing situation are themselves likely to produce phoney identity cards. To make it absolutely clear to pensioners that officers of the Department of Social Security will not be visiting pensioners' homes for the purpose of investigating the contents of those homes, the Director-General took the decision he took on a short term basis to assist pensioners and to reassure pensioners in this situation. I think that was a reasonable thing to do in light of the misleading information that had gone around. I was informed of the Director-General's decision and of the reasons for it. I saw no reason to object to that decision. Senator MAGUIRE —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the former Treasurer and now preferred Opposition Leader, Mr Howard, said in his March 1981 taxation statement that it was not possible to raise sufficient additional indirect taxation to provide noticeable personal income tax relief without adding to the consumer price index in a major way? Has anything changed since then to make this statement untrue? Is the Liberals so-called tax policy highly inflationary? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of that statement made by Mr Howard in 1981. It has been drawn to my attention in the context of the recent discussion of these matters. Nothing in particular has changed. The policy of the Liberal Party of Australia-if we can take such a vague statement at its face value-is highly inflationary. Senator Chaney —You haven't got a policy. What are you talking about? Senator BUTTON —The policy of this Government is not highly inflationary compared with Senator Chaney's policy. People will rely on the record to see that. On Mr Howard's own admission, on 1981 figures each $500m raised in indirect taxes causes a one per cent rise in the consumer price index. At Mr Howard's launch of the taxation policy the other day he said that inflation is lower now and that therefore this is a better time to act than it was in 1981. I guess we can agree that it is a better time for most Australians. However, that argument is spurious. Inflation is lower now-no thanks to the Liberal Party-but a one per cent increase is just that, no matter what the inflation rate is. In fact at a lower rate one per cent represents a greater proportion of any increase. Mr Howard, as an example, said that a drop of 5c in the dollar across the personal income tax scale would need a rise of $3 billion in indirect taxes. Senator Chaney —I thought you wanted a sensible taxation debate. Senator BUTTON —I am getting interjections concerning a sensible taxation debate . I am quoting from what Mr Howard said. If Senator Chaney, in pursuit of his ratings in the opinion poll, is saying that Mr Howard is incorrect and that is not a sensible contribution, I will stop quoting Mr Howard. This additional $3 billion would raise the consumer price index by 6 percentage points. We would be back again on the old treadmill of Liberal-National Party government. Mr Howard went on to say there would be additional flow-on consequences for the consumer price index through the wage system and that these additional flow-on consequences are hard to quantify. Therefore, the Opposition's policy is inflationary. If the $2.2 billion cost to revenue of income-splitting is to be met an alternative government would have to raise indirect taxes, as of course it has said it would do. It would do this over a series of Budgets, thus building in inflation. As I said, we would be back to the same old discredited round of the past. In referring to the cost of income splitting proposals, I make the point that insofar as the $18,000 cut-off figure is concerned Senator Chaney said yesterday in the Senate, in relying on a costing for that, that the costing was $650m as estimated by Mr Eric Risstrom. He chided me for giving a higher costing than $ 650m. He relied yesterday on a costing provided by Mr Eric Risstrom of the Taxpayers Association of Australia. However, Mr John Howard, the former Treasurer of this country, in 1981 estimated the cost of that program to be $1.1 billion. The cost of the same proposal- Senator Chaney —You are on different proposals and different tax rates. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday, in the course of the debate, the Opposition reduced the figure in respect of the same proposal. That just shows that the tax policy, which according to Mr Peacock on Monday has been 12 months in preparation, really has not had much preparation at all. Senator CHANEY —My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate follows the question he has just answered, or rather debated. I ask the Minister to confirm that yesterday he admitted that the Australian Labor Party indexed excises and guaranteed their twice yearly rise. I remind him that yesterday he was not prepared to say there would be no shift to indirect taxation if Labor is re-elected. I ask again: Is the Minister prepared to give a firm undertaking that if Labor is re-elected it will not raise indirect taxes and will not seek to raise a greater proportion of its revenue through indirect taxes? Senator BUTTON —I am happy to provide an answer once again to Senator Chaney. I confirm that the Government has indexed certain excise rates. One of the reasons we did that is that excise duties over the years have been subject to fluctuations and speculations at Budget time. Under previous governments in this country there have been impositions of new excise duties or increases in excise duties on an ad hoc basis at every Budget, which is totally confusing to industry. This caused all sorts of speculations at Budget time. Yes, we indexed two excises. At the same time I simply make the point that we have reduced the inflation rate in this country. I want also to deal with the question Senator Chaney asked concerning whether the Government would give an undertaking that there will be no introduction of or increase in indirect taxes if the Labor Government is returned to power at the next election. I answer that question in the same way as I did yesterday. The Government's concern about indirect taxation is the regressive effects it is likely to have in respect of the whole tax structure and also the inflationary effects. If the Opposition does not mind, we have a view on that issue. Those things are undesirable and, of course, related to general questions of economic management-something which the Liberal Party really did not have much success at . As I said yesterday, those questions will be considered in the context of a general and comprehensive taxation review designed to produce greater equity in the Australian taxation system. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The clear meaning of that answer is that the Government is leaving it open to itself, if re- elected, to raise indirect taxes if that is what is in its mind at the conclusion of any review. In other words, the Minister is not prepared to deny that possibility or say that it will not occur under Labor. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs in her own right and as Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments by the State Minister for Education, Mr Powell, in the Queensland Press this week? Also , has the Minister seen an editorial that criticises moves by the University of Queensland to admit Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders into the university without the usual entrance requirements? Does the Minister agree with the conclusions of that editorial that such a scheme is ill-considered, illogical and unlikely to succeed, and is likely to do more harm than good to the cause of anti-discrimination? Senator RYAN —I have seen criticisms in the Queensland Press, in particular the editorial in the Courier-Mail, about the decision of the University of Queensland to take in a small number of Aboriginal students on a special arrangement, that arrangement being that they will be taken in without having reached the normal tertiary entrance score, and the Government will be providing special additional funding for the special support needed for those Aboriginal and Islander students. I must express my satisfaction and congratulations to the University of Queensland for taking up the offer made by the Tertiary Education Commission in its guidelines. The Commission has indicated that special funding would be available to those institutions that are prepared to make special arrangements for Aboriginal and Islander students. It is very disappointing to see that a newspaper such as the Courier-Mail has run an editorial criticising not only the particular institution for its progressive decision but also the whole program of special provisions for Aboriginal and Islander students. All Queenslanders, particularly, since their State has a very high population of Aboriginal and Islander citizens, should be aware that Aboriginal and Islander students are generally very disadvantaged from their earliest days. Aboriginal and Islander students have a very low participation rate in secondary education and of course an extraordinarily low participation rate in tertiary education. These defects in educational opportunities provided for Aboriginals and Islanders mean that the cause of Aboriginal advancement is being held back. I think everybody, perhaps even the editorial writer of the Courier-Mail, would agree that in order for true advancement towards equality and justice for Aboriginal and Islander people to occur there needs to be capable, strong, informed leadership from the Aboriginal communities themselves, and that requires better educational opportunities than have previously been provided. Our Government has no difficulty in recognising that because of the extreme disadvantages to Aboriginal and Islander children in their school days it is absolutely fair and equitable to make special arrangements for their entrance into higher education institutions. We recognise that they will need additional assistance because they have not been as well prepared for tertiary education as other students, and in order to help institutions give that assistance we are making special funding available. I would have thought that that was something everybody, particularly citizens in States such as Queensland, would endorse. I should also express my criticism of the view, which has been stated before when the subject of positive discrimination in relation to disadvantaged groups has come up, that by making special entry arrangements for disadvantaged groups we are inevitably lowering standards. This is simply not the case. The fact is that there are very able, very bright students who, if they are given special assistance to get in and get through the early stages of tertiary education, will perform very well. The problem is at the point of entry, as they have not been as well prepared as other students. They need special assistance to overcome that. If that special assistance is properly provided by the staff of an institution-I am sure the Queensland University will provide such special assistance-there is no reason why those students cannot reach the same high standards as other students reach. Indeed, it is one of our aims in achieving more equal educational outcomes that those high standards be available to Aboriginal and Islander students as well as to other disadvantaged groups. So the real problem is at the point of entry, where TE scores are very high because of the competition for places, but once that is overcome we have great confidence that in the program the University of Queensland is going to undertake-and similar enclave programs are now being undertaken throughout Australia-assistance will be given to bright, highly motivated Aboriginal and Islander students to achieve the high standards which they, the institutions and the Government want to see. There is absolutely no evidence that once the initial stage of entry and the early years of study are completed those students will not be as capable as any other student of achieving the highest possible standards. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is directed to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, in accordance with standing order 98. It concerns his private member' s Bill to ban visits to Australia of nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships. What effect would this have on the ANZUS Treaty? Do not a number of United States cities and United States allies already prohibit nuclear powered and armed warships from visiting their ports? What effect would the banning of nuclear armed warships have on Australia's defence? The PRESIDENT —Order! I indicated yesterday that it has been a long established custom for a certain amount of elasticity at Question Time during an election period, but the question asked by Senator Evans seems to invite anticipation of debate on a matter that is on the Notice Paper. I refer to standing order 419. I will not rule the question out of order, but I draw that matter to Senator Chipp 's attention and suggest that he bear it in mind when he is answering the question. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I would appreciate it if you did rule on it. May I suggest, with the greatest respect to you, that if you do rule in accordance with the advice that the Clerk has given-this is said with great respect to the Clerk-it would make an absolute farce of every Question Time that has ever been held or is likely to be held in this Senate? I refer you to standing order 99, under which I presume the Clerk has given you advice. Senator Georges —Leave the Clerk out of it. Senator CHIPP —I can do very well without the help of people like Senator Georges. Senator Georges —Just leave the Clerk out of it. Senator CHIPP —Mind your own business and go back to Queensland. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Senate to come to order. I have not ruled Senator Chipp out of order. I have ruled that Senator Chipp is entitled to answer the question, but before he does, I draw his attention to standing order 419. Senator CHIPP —Thank you, Mr President. I mention in passing that hardly ever is a question on any controversial issue asked at Question Time in this place when some matter referring to that question is not already on the Notice Paper. Day after day here we have had questions on the assets test. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, I have allowed you to answer the question. Senator CHIPP —Thank you, Mr President. In answer to Senator Jack Evans, as I indicated in my second reading speech, the ANZUS Treaty has no relevance at all to the Democrats' prospective legislation to ban nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships from Australia's ports. I deeply regret that while we have spent hours on trifles in this place, while a great number of honourable senators have been obsessed with pornography, with frightening old ladies and with the assets test, the very question of the future of the world has not been seen fit to be debated before the Senate rises for an election. ANZUS was signed in 1951, basically to control any resurgent Japanese militarism. It does not mention nuclear armed warships; it does not mention nuclear bases. ANZUS provides only for consultation between the parties in a time of crisis. In ANZUS there is no undertaking whatsoever, let alone a guarantee, that the United States will give military assistance to Australia under any circumstances. There is certainly no obligation on any party to do anything except consult. The courageous decision of the New Zealand Government to ban nuclear powered and nuclear armed warships-the matter to which Senator Evans referred-is providing the world with a much needed example of moral leadership. New Zealand has made it quite clear that it does not want to abolish ANZUS. It wants the treaty to be compatible with its anti-nuclear policy. We should do the same. ANZUS has become a nuclear treaty by stealth. ANZUS is now a danger to Australia , not a help, in that it ensures, by the admission of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister themselves, that every Australian is a possible nuclear target because of nuclear bases on Australian soil. That is not a statement of the Democrats. That is a statement from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Many areas in the world do not welcome nuclear powered or nuclear armed warships into their ports. Even in America, cities such as Boston and New York, because of their high population density, do not allow the visits of nuclear powered vessels. Denmark has prohibited nuclear weapons in its territory and harbours since 1957, yet remains a valued member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NATO is a much more stringent and binding treaty organisation than ANZUS. The relevance of this question to the Senate and the business before it is this : Recently, 46 per cent of all Australians opposed the visits of nuclear-powered ships to Australia-the figure would have been higher if they had been asked about the visits of nuclear-armed ships-yet 100 per cent of the members of the House of Representatives support the visit of nuclear ships. Whom do they represent? Fifty-nine out of 64 senators support the visits of nuclear-powered ships. Whom do they represent? The Democrats believe that ensuring that there are no nuclear weapons in Australia's territory will enhance our defence. Any potential nuclear aggressor would remove Australia from a nuclear target list. We must also ensure that we have no foreign bases which link us with nuclear weapons and make us inevitable nuclear targets. Finally, Mr President, I thank you and the Senate for your indulgence. Australia is guilty of gross hypocrisy by opposing nuclear weapons everywhere else in the world, except in our own country where we welcome them into our ports with open arms. Senator Robert Ray —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I request that the document that Senator Chipp so spontaneously quoted from be tabled. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chipp, will you table the document? Senator Chipp —It is hardly confidential, Mr President. I table it with pleasure . Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that the Queensland Parliament has become the election campaign headquarters for the Federal Opposition parties? Can the Minister therefore comment on the extremist claims of the State Environment Minister, Mr Tenni, that a special office was set up by his Department to pay unemployment benefits to protesters in the Daintree Rainforest region who, Mr Tenni claims, were paid $15 a day extra because they were protesters? Can the Minister bring a little sanity into the current election misrepresentations emanating from the Queensland Parliament? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Reynolds for her question and the opportunity to set the record straight on this matter. I have no knowledge that the Queensland Parliament has become the headquarters of the Liberal and National parties for their campaign, although the lack of regard for the truth by Ministers in that Parliament is typical of the lack of regard for the truth that comes from the Liberal and National parties' headquarters. I was aware that Mr Martin Tenni told the Queensland Parliament yesterday that an agency of my Department was specially set up in the Daintree Rainforest area to process unemployment benefit claims of protesters in that region and to pay them extra money. Although I had no need to do so, I had the matter investigated. As expected, this is a complete fabrication. The nearest regional office of my Department to the Daintree Rainforest is, in fact, Cairns. The regional manager of the Cairns office has advised me that no agency was established in the rain forest area to process unemployment benefits or for any other purpose. I am also advised that at the time of the protest against the construction of the road there was not even a field officer from the Department in this area. I know nothing of Mr Tenni's claim that $15 a day was paid to protesters in the Daintree Rainforest area or his other extraordinary claim that $100,000 was sent up there to pay these benefits. He claimed also that this came from the Department of Social Security. I will just say that no special arrangements were made to pay benefits to people protesting against the construction of the road in the rain forest. I suggest that Mr Tenni check his facts before he makes statements like this, statements which are an insult not only to the officers of my Department but also to the electors of this country. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does he agree that a capital gains tax would adversely affect business confidence and the level of private investment in Australia? Senator BUTTON —My personal views on that matter are my personal views and are not relevant to any decision which might be recommended by the comprehensive review of the taxation system or any decision following that which might be made by the Government. But the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry do not take the view that is implied in the honourable senator's question, and I pass their views on to him. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that the Labor Government in July 1974 announced a capital gains tax, followed it up in the August 1974 Budget of Treasurer Crean and had it thrown out by Mr Whitlam in January 1975 using the exact words I used? Why is Mr Whitlam's logic awry today? The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not regard the question as a supplementary question. Senator COLSTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs been drawn to recent media coverage concerning the long waiting lists for specialised surgery in some State public hospitals? Is the Minister satisfied that the health care provided by the Commonwealth in repatriation hospitals is of an acceptable standard? Senator GIETZELT —I understand that in quite a number of, if not all, the State hospital systems there are problems in accommodating the number of patients requiring hospitalisation, surgery and other related assistance. That, I suppose , is because State governments have difficulties in providing sufficient funds to maintain the services in State hospital systems. Similarly, the Commonwealth has difficulties in the way in which funds are allocated to the repatriation hospitals. The honourable senator asked me whether I am satisfied that the health care provided by the repatriation hospitals is of an acceptable standard. I do not think over a large number of years sufficient funds have been made available to the repatriation hospital system throughout Australia. The hospitals have been kept going, but I doubt whether they have kept up to the standards that are required in a modern society. In the last two Budgets I have received substantial increases in funds to modernise our hospitals, to refurbish the wards and provide funds for specialised equipment, but we have a long way to go. In respect of our hospital system in Australia, my general view is that problems exist in both the repatriation hospitals, which are Commonwealth responsibilities, and the State hospitals. In the honourable senator's State of Queensland, I understand, there are grave problems, but problems also exist in many of the other States. I think substantial funds need to be made available federally to the Commonwealth repatriation system and to the States to ensure that we have an effective and modern hospital system capable of meeting the needs of all patients in Australia . Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the inclusion in the 1974 Whitlam Government's Budget of a capital gains tax. I ask the Minister: Does he recall the scope of the tax and some of the exemptions that were announced by the then Treasurer, Mr Crean? Is the Whitlam capital gains tax model the one favoured by the Hawke Government? For example, does the Minister believe that the tax should extend, as the Whitlam Government's capital gains tax was proposed to do, to foreign exchange gains, gains from the purchase of debentures, compulsory acquisitions, gifts, and transfers on death, and that half of the capital gains realised during a year should be included in assessable income and taxed at income tax rates, that is, the personal tax rate or the company tax rate as applicable. Senator BUTTON —I hope I can be forgiven, but I do not recall the details of the tax proposal which was apparently around in 1974. I have no recollection of that . I have recollection of the intervening period, however, when the Fraser Government floated a variety of suggestions about tax reform in an ad hoc sort of way and then backed away from it. I remember the late Sir Phillip Lynch floating a suggestion about the social security system and suggesting that the over-70 pension should be means tested. I remember, too, the anguish with which the government of the day quickly went to ground on that issue. I remember Mr John Howard, for example, in 1981 floating a wide ranging proposal for indirect tax and how that disappeared from the political lexicon. I remember all those things happening in the previous period of government. I was again reminded of them when I read the recent tax policy of the Opposition, which proposes a further tinkering with the taxation system of the same kind as that carried out by the previous Government for seven years. The people of Australia want a comprehensive review of the taxation system which will result in greater equity. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked whether the model favoured by the Hawke Government for a capital gains tax was the same as that suggested in 1974. As I have said on numerous occasions, there is no model favoured by the Hawke Government in respect of a capital gains tax; there is no proposal for a capital gains tax being considered by this Government. If that matter comes up in the course of a comprehensive review of the taxation system, the Government will make decisions about it at the appropriate time. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Minister seen the article in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed 'Surgeons' Incomes hit by fall in private patients'? The article refers to the accelerating tendency of hospital patients in New South Wales to be treated as public rather than private patients, thus threatening taxable incomes of top New South Wales surgeons. The article states: To counter the loss of income, the private specialists have decided to demand that all public hospital patients paying Medicare levy be regarded as private patients. Does that not indicate that Medicare is being properly and effectively understood and used by the people of New South Wales for whom, as for all Australians, Medicare was introduced? Is it not true that many members of the Australian Medical Association are appalled by their colleagues' behaviour? Is it not true that Medicare was established to guarantee that no person in this country would be denied access to our excellent health care because he could not pay? Is it not true that this Government and particularly its Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, have gone to great lengths to consult all parties affected by its changes? Finally, is it not true that the intention of the private specialists to force a return to a fee for service basis for a majority of public hospital patients is in absolute contravention of the aims and intentions of Medicare and contrary to some of the recommendations of the Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals? Senator GRIMES —I am not aware that I have read the article in the Australian Financial Review, but I have certainly read many other articles about the doctors dispute in New South Wales. The significant thing about the dispute is that it is unashamedly and obviously about money. Many members of the Opposition and members of the medical profession would condemn trade unions for taking action on such a matter. Secondly, the dispute is disapproved of publicly by the official representatives of the medical profession in New South Wales, that is, the Australian Medical Association. They have been negotiating in good faith with the New South Wales Minister for Health and he has been negotiating in good faith with them. However, the doctors to whom the question refers are rebelling. What they want to do, and unashamedly say so, is to double their income from public patients in public hospitals in New South Wales. To do this they want public patients who are paying Medicare levy to be treated as private patients so that the doctors can receive fee for service for their operations in these hospitals. If anything has been notorious in the past in health service delivery in this country it has been the manner in which some doctors-I repeat some doctors-have managed to garner for themselves enormous incomes from public hospitals, particularly at times when they were paid on a basis of fee for service. It is the view of the Labor Party and many members of the medical profession that the most appropriate method of payment for these services is sessional payments. At the risk of being accused by Senator Walters and other Opposition senators of being a doctor basher, I remind the Senate that there are members of the medical profession and members of parliament who claim that the only way to have a satisfactory doctor-patient relationship in the practice of medicine is to pay cash for that service. I call that the gypsy principle-as if patients will not get good service unless they cross doctors' palms with silver. That attitude is grossly insulting to every salaried medical practitioner, to every medical academic, and to anyone who has ever worked in a salaried position and given a good, fair and concerned service to patients in the health service. This small group of doctors in New South Wales is willing to do what the medical profession as a whole has not been willing to do in the past. Those doctors are putting at risk the comfort, good health and peace of mind of their patients, so that doctors can increase incomes which are already among the highest in the community. Those doctors will get no credit from the New South Wales public, they will get no credit from the Australian Medical Association in New South Wales, and they will do a disservice not only to their patients and to the health service in New South Wales but to their profession as a whole. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to Senator Durack and refers to General Business Order of the Day No. 108, Constitution Alteration (External Affairs) Bill 1984. Will he explain the object and purpose of clause 2 of the Bill? The PRESIDENT —Order! Before Senator Durack responds, I make the same remarks to him as I did to Senator Chipp. The right to ask the question is allowable under standing order 98, but I draw Senator Durack's attention to standing order 419 about not anticipating debate on the subject. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I thank you for drawing my attention to the standing order which I have already had occasion to look at relating to the question to Senator Chipp. I am glad that Senator Walters has taken the opportunity of the Standing Orders to ask me this question because it is a most topical matter and requires further explanation. The object and purpose of my Bill to which Senator Walters has referred is to limit the scope of the external affairs power of the Commonwealth as recently interpreted by the High Court-- Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I submit that this is going too far. It is obvious that Senator Durack cannot answer the question without anticipating the debate. Senator Durack is about to make a virtual second reading speech on a portion of the Bill. I intend to seek to make a personal explanation after Question Time on another matter, but I raise this matter now because it makes the President's position difficult. The President indicated yesterday that a certain amount of flexibility is allowed as we proceed towards an election. Nevertheless, we should not create a precedent and allow senators to pop up and start asking questions of other senators who happen to have items on the Notice Paper. That cannot be done except within the strict limits indicated by the President. I submit that Senator Durack is exceeding those limits. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am not ruling the question out of order. I have drawn Senator Durack's attention to standing order 419. It states that a senator cannot anticipate debate on a matter which has been placed on the Notice Paper. I also draw his attention to standing order 100, which clearly says: In answering any . . . Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers. Senator DURACK —Thank you again, Mr President. As I was about to explain, this Bill will restrict the very wide scope of the external affairs power and the way in which it is interpreted. The government and particularly the Attorney-General glory in these vast new powers which they have obtained. The fact of the matter is that the Federal Government can enter into a treaty on any subject under the sun and this Parliament can give effect to that threat notwithstanding that it is dealing with matters completely unrelated to any other power which the Federal Government has under our Constitution. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has explained that this sort of procedure will mean that the distribution of powers conferred under the Constitution could in time be completely obliterated, that there would be no field of power which the Commonwealth could not invade and the Federal balance achieved by the Constitution could be entirely destroyed. This is very relevant at present, as I said, because of the Government's plans to introduce a Bill of Rights to give effect to an international covenant. As the Premier of Queensland showed yesterday, that will cover every subject under the sun related to State powers. It will turn the federal system on its head. The object of the Bill that I have introduced is to prevent that. I hope that the Senate will give speedy passage to it when we return and that the Constitution will be amended to restrict this Government in exercising these vast powers, which it should not really have. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen claims by the Opposition and in particular by Mr Macphee that the Government has been misleading in its use of employment growth figures? Is there any substance to claims that most of the employment growth has been in the public sector? Senator BUTTON —A number of misleading claims have been made in relation to the employment figures and in some cases they are totally untrue. I do not lay the charge of 'misleading' against Mr Macphee in any deliberate sense; I think he misunderstands the figures. Senator Crichton-Browne has raised this issue in the Senate a number of times. I am not sure of the status of his misleading information. During 1983-84 full time employment growth of 170,000 exceeded by some 75,000 people growth in the full time labour force, implying a fall in full time unemployment of this amount. Mr Macphee has confused the full time labour force with the total-that is, full time plus part time-labour force. In fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for September 1984 show that unemployment amongst people looking for full time work has fallen by 82,700, 15. 5 per cent, since March 1983, with a significant drop in the unemployment rate amongst these people from 10.6 per cent to 9 per cent over that period. The Government's advertising, which has been the subject of attack, uses the 1983-84 financial year when over a longer period, such as the last 17 months, the increase in the number of jobs has been even greater-264,000-than shown in the advertisements about which Senator Macklin, for example, asked a question the other day. One can compare that with the record of the Opposition when in government. In the last full financial year of the coalition Government employment grew by only 400, compared with over 230,000 in the latest financial year under this Government. Employment growth is not now concentrated in the public sector as has been suggested, for example by Senator Crichton-Browne. The last published ABS figures for August 1984 show the following: Total employment levels are increasing at an exceptionally high annual rate of 3.5 per cent. Employment in the manufacturing sector is now increasing on an annual basis for the first time since May 1982. Employment in manufacturing grew by 9,400, or 0.8 per cent, over the year to August 1984. Senator Missen —By what? Senator BUTTON —Senator Missen interjects. I agree that it is not all one would wish for, but it is a turnaround; that is the important point. Employment growth has continued strongly in other key areas of the private sector. Employment in construction grew by 9 per cent during the year to August 1984. Jobs in the wholesale and retail trade sector grew by 4.5 per cent. Employment in the finance, property and business services sectors expanded by 7.8 per cent. Recreational and personal services grew by 7.5 per cent. Major public sector industry groups are community services, public administration, electricity, gas, water and so on. Over the year to August 1984 employment in these areas increased by 80,700 or 5.8 per cent. This represents only 36.5 per cent of the overall growth in employment. My answer relates both to the query raised by Senator Cook on the misunderstanding, I believe, in the figures which Mr Macphee presented and certainly to a substantial misapprehension revealed by Senator Crichton-Browne in his notice of motion given in the Senate today. These figures demonstrate the broad nature of the recovery in employment. That is something about which I have said on numerous occasions we cannot in any sense be complacent, but we can be gratified that that turn-round has taken place. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to answers he gave on Monday to questions from Senator Cook and from me about the costing of the Opposition's election promises. He will recall his promises to provide answers to particular points I raised with him when I challenged the accuracy of the costing on which he relied. I ask: Does he now agree that he misled the Senate when he claimed that the cost of a dual runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport was not included in the phoney figure of $2. 5 billion trotted out by the Treasurer and used by the Minister on Monday? Does he now agree that that item was included in Mr Keating's calculations? Will he now give the net cost of the runway proposal when offset against the Government' s own plans for Sydney airport facilities? Is it a fact that the 1983-84 Budget Papers show that the cost of repealing the Government's new lump sum superannuation tax would be only $10m in 1983-84, a very different figure from the $300m so dishonestly claimed by Mr Keating? Finally, what is the true figure for a phased reduction of double taxation arrangements next financial year as opposed to the $400m claimed by the Treasurer? Senator BUTTON —If Senator Chaney likes to consult Hansard he will see that in giving that answer I referred to the structural deficit in terms of the costing of the Opposition's proposals. The Opposition cannot have it every conceivable way. It cannot make a whole string of promises and say 'We will do these things which cost $2.5 billion', and then in the same breath say 'We might phase them in, we might not do them until the economy is right'. It cannot have the benefit of both things. I am saying that the Opposition's proposals, which have been costed at $2.5 billion, would build into the structural deficit of this country enormous anticipations, which the Opposition seeks, about what it might do. In the context of Australia's economy over the next few years they would build those costs into the deficit. That is what I said. The point of Senator Chaney's question-what it will cost next year-is not the real question. The point is what it will cost over a full year if the Opposition actually does these things. The cost in a full year of, for example, repealing the lump sum superannuation tax would be $300m. Senator Chaney —When would that be? Senator BUTTON —That is what everybody would like to know. The Opposition has been saying all this year that it will get rid of that tax. When will that be? That is what the Australian people want to know. When will the Opposition get rid of it? If the Opposition does get rid of it it will cost $300m in a full year. Senator Chaney, by interjection, asks the question to which every Australian voter will want to know the answer: 'When will you do these things and, if you do these things, what will they cost?' Senator Chaney —Stop telling lies. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will withdraw that remark. Senator Chaney —I withdraw. Senator BUTTON —Mr President, I seem to have upset Senator Chaney in some way. I did not intend to do that. I wanted to make the simple point that it is no good the Opposition saying that it is going to do all these things-it has been saying that all this year-and then going out into the electorate and saying: 'We are not going to look at the full year costs of those things because we might not do them'. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —You do not understand how it works. Senator BUTTON —I am told by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle that I do not understand how it works. I go back to what I said earlier. When I answered the question from Senator Chaney I referred to the structural deficit, and that is in Hansard. If Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle wants to look at that and give us a particular explanation in view of her vast experience and wisdom on these matters, I have no doubt that she will do so. Perhaps I can satisfy Senator Chaney on one point. I misunderstood the question about the runway at Mascot which Senator Chaney addressed to me and I sincerely apologise for that. I thought he was saying that I had adverted to that issue in my answer to his question. When I read Hansard I realised that what he was in fact addressing was, of course, a Press release which was put out by the Treasurer. Yes, the cost of the runway is in the Press release put out by the Treasurer. I would make only one other point which is supplementary to that. Senator Chaney also asked about the offsetting costs of the Government's proposal to purchase a site for the airport. It is my understanding that that is also the Opposition proposal-it is part of its policy-and so, in a sense, there is no offsetting costs in those terms. Senator Chaney —That is not right. Senator BUTTON —The Opposition, as I understand it, said that it would do that too. That is my understanding of what Senator Chaney has said. But I apologise to Senator Chaney for misunderstanding the question. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. One of the items to which I specifically referred was the supposed cost of $300m for the abolition of the lump sum tax on superannuation. I asked the Minister to indicate how many years it would take to accrue to that level of cost. Is it a fact that it would be 15 to 20 years on the estimates of the Australian Taxation Office before a cost of that level was incurred? In other words, it would be 15 to 20 years before the Government would expect to gather that sort of revenue from its proposals. Senator BUTTON —I directed my answer to the cost in a full year. The $2.5 billion was said to be the cost of these proposals in a full year. We were talking about the structural deficit, which is really the cost that one can build into the deficit into the future in respect of a wide range of these items . Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Has the Minister seen the report in today's Daily Telegraph regarding the Opposition 's policy for veterans? Is there any substance to the Opposition's claims of disruption and concern among veterans as a result of the supposed failure to introduce legislation to restructure the repatriation determining system? Senator GIETZELT —My attention has been drawn to page 4 of today's Sydney Daily Telegraph which says that the Opposition claimed the Labor Government was causing disruption and concern by not introducing legislation to restructure the repatriation determining system with a view to ending backlogs and delays among repatriation claims. I am absolutely appalled that that statement should come from the Opposition because Senator Scott and Senator Messner spoke in support of the legislation which was dealt with in the Senate on the last day of the autumn sittings and passed through the House of Representatives several weeks ago. This week I appointed more than 60 members to serve on review boards that will commence on 1 January 1985 for the express purpose of overcoming the extreme delay and backlog which took place during the seven years of office of the Liberal Government. I find it incomprehensible that Senator Scott should have such statements attributed to him because he spoke positively in support of the legislation. One can only conclude that it is either a piece of sloppy journalism or a complete attempt by the Opposition to mislead and cause distress and confusion among many thousands of veterans. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Last night during the adjournment debate Senator Townley and Senator Jessop raised the question of whether the coverage of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation had been restricted in certain areas with a consequent reduction in the security of Ministers and members of parliament in the period leading up to the election. In the course of that debate last night, if I can dignify it with that description, there was also the suggestion that somehow ASIO was on strike. I have had inquiries made about this matter. The extent of ASIO coverage in relation to the security of Ministers and members of parliament in the period leading up to the election was raised recently by ASIO with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans)-that is in terms of the methodology, if one likes, of what ASIO would be doing. The present position is that the Attorney-General is awaiting further information from ASIO. Any suggestion that ASIO members are on strike, either literally or in some subliminal sense, is totally incorrect. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I seek leave of the Senate to table a very short document of just a few paragraphs in respect of the reconstitution of the National Advisory Committee which looks after the Vietnam Veterans' Counselling Service. I have cleared this statement with my counterpart, Senator Scott. Leave granted. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented during an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program in Canberra in the week commencing 8 October 1984. I seek leave to make a personal explanation in relation to that matter. Leave granted. Senator JESSOP —During the week that I mentioned I found it quite unbelievable when Senator Haines in an ABC interview said, without any substantive proof or prior inquiry, that people had complained to her that it was virtually impossible for them to see or arrange appointments with senators and members of parliament and suggested that they are out of touch with the people, or words to that effect. This blatant general statement could not be further from the truth. My door has always been open to the public. I have made it a practice to go out to factories, schools and other institutions and have discussions with industry, commerce and technological organisations. I have made it a practice to meet the people at the work face and in regional areas so as to familiarise myself with their activities and discuss any work associated problems they may have. I have done this ever since I entered Parliament in 1966. I resent most strongly the implication in her interview that members of parliament, except herself, are inaccessible to the public and I believe it is quite unethical and unfair of her to use such a broad brush in order to cast doubts on my parliamentary integrity and the integrity of my colleagues, both Liberal and Labor. I believe that these hard working and publicly active Federal politicians, apparently unrecognised by her, would also take justifiable exception to her ignorant generalisation. It is interesting to note the recent happenings in South Australia where a Senate candidate for the Democrats-- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now going beyond making a personal explanation. Senator JESSOP —Mr President, this sort of egotistical statement by Senator Haines gives rise to the accusation that the Democrats are dominated by feminists. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. As a result of an answer from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), my attention has been drawn to a statement in the Daily Telegraph in which it is said: He- that is me- claimed the Labor Government was causing disruption and concern by not introducing legislation to restructure the repatriation determining system with a view to ending backlogs and delays-- I want merely to confirm what I believe the Minister implied-that that legislation was supported by the Opposition. Its purpose is to increase the capacity of the Department to solve the problems of the determining system. The matter we were to monitor carefully and the concern we expressed in our policy were referable to the forthcoming entitlements Bill, a totally different piece of legislation which involves the restructuring of the whole of the Repatriation Act 1920. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation on a matter which occurred during Question Time. During Question Time I made a remark concerning the Clerks to which Senator Chipp took strong exception. Senator Chipp —Your conscience was troubling you, wasn't it? Senator GEORGES —It is not my conscience. Senator Chipp —I do not know how you live with your conscience. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Senate will come to order. Senator Georges has sought and been given leave to make a personal explanation and is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator GEORGES —Senator Chipp, in responding to you, Mr President, referred to the Clerk's advice and suggested that you ought not to accept it. I suggest that that was an affront to the Clerks and to you, Mr President. The Clerks have a very difficult task to fulfil here. It is a task that should be invisible, and has been accepted as such. We do not refer to the Clerks or question their advice because we know that eventually you, Mr President, will make the decision . Senator Chipp ought to be aware of that now if he was not aware of it before. He took the opportunity because I said 'Leave the Clerks out of it' to engage in a tirade against me and to suggest that I go back to Queensland. I am getting a little tired of Senator Chipp. He comes into this place and accuses everyone else of hypocrisy but when he does that he excludes himself. The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is entitled only to make a personal explanation in relation to himself. On the point that has been raised by Senator Georges, I state that I have the utmost faith in the competence of the advice that is tendered to me from time to time. Whether I accept it is a matter for me and me alone. On the matter that Senator Chipp raised, the Clerk gave me advice on a number of options and I chose a certain option. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the government to stand up for Australian families. 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 PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.10) —Whatever changes are occurring in Australian families, and there are changes occurring, the fact remains, as revealed in the 1981 family profile, that 84.5 per cent of Australians live in families; that is, six out of seven Australians live in families. That includes more than 60 per cent of Australians who live in what are called conventional families composed of two parents and dependent children. That is the nature of our society at present. The family unit is the rock on which Australian society is built. It is the unit of mutual support. It is the unit for love. It is the unit for standard setting. It is the unit for cultural and ethical transmission from generation to generation. It is the unit for the development of interpersonal relationships. It is a very important, valuable and positive unit in Australian society. Australians realise that the certainties of 20 years ago are no longer with us. Australians understand that this is a more hostile world, a less certain world, a rapidly changing world with new and increasing problems and with great pressures and great stresses. But in this world, in the Australia of today, the need for mutual support is greater than it has ever been. The support that families, a variety of families, are able to provide is more necessary now than it has ever been. The need for back-up is greater now. The need for a haven for people is greater now. The need for assistance with such things as accommodation and schooling is greater now than it has ever been. It is the family that can provide these strengths. It is families par excellence which provide this support for Australians today. Because this is so, governments must act to enhance, support and look after the family. They must support it and sustain it. The policies which they produce and the programs which come out of those policies must demonstrate this support. It is a sad but quite obvious fact that Labor neither understands families, nor has policies for or cares about families. The Liberal and National parties are unwavering in their support for families and of the role of families in strengthening and sustaining Australian society. Our policies which we have announced in the last weeks and even in the last days are directed to showing practical support of and practical encouragement to families and to demonstrate our commitment to families. It is proper that policies and programs should do so -policies and programs which translate the rhetoric of political activity into actions which affect us all. This Labor Government, this mob of socialists, whilst it has tried to conceal its intentions, has acted to make families less secure, less certain, less confident and less able to do the job which they want to do and which they do best. Family allowances are worth less in real terms, as is the spouse rebate. This Government has opposed the kind of income splitting we have advocated to help single income families. We have seen increased imposts on families, whether by direct tax or indirect tax. We have seen offered a tax cut which does not even cover the extra tax collections so that families are worse off. We say that this Government neither understands nor cares about families. An example comes to mind. Mr Keating, the Federal Treasurer, just two days ago speaking on radio 3AW in Melbourne, said: Our policy is not in favour of the family unit as a taxpaying unit. He expressed quite correctly his Party's philosophy. That statement also explains the basis for some of the Government's legislation, some of its programs and some of its approach. Another example comes to mind straight away in the area of schooling. Apart from Labor's failure to honour its promises to public education where three out of four of our children receive their education , we find that Labor has found it easier to talk of wealthy schools in the non- government sector. It forgets entirely that it should be talking about parents and families who are struggling and sacrificing to give opportunities to their children. The rhetoric which Labor uses never supports the family, nor is it directed to family needs. In addition, we know that families are worse off financially now than they have ever been. My colleagues, Senator Messner, Senator Hill and perhaps Senator Lewis, will develop this further if they are not gagged. On 10 July this year Mr Eric Risstrom said on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's World Today program: Over the last 12 months the tax for the typical family unit, husband, wife, two kids, who belong to a medical fund, buying a home, their tax has gone up 23 per cent. That is the context in which we are operating. My colleagues will develop quite logically certain areas in which Labor has failed to support the family. They will indicate the severity of the burden and the task facing families. The signals from Labor are that families are, if not anachronistic, certainly not central to Labor's thinking or to its idea of this Australia or any future Australia. One example is the Sex Discrimination Bill. I supported that Bill because I wanted to support it; nevertheless it had one defect which stood out. That defect was a massive insensitivity towards those in Australian society who choose to hold to traditional values and structures and want to see some support for those roles from government. My colleagues will lay out the penalties to families in areas such as tax policies, the accord, retirement income and housing and other policy areas. Labor's much vaunted accord has already been attacked by many people for its failure to provide support to families. It has entrenched unemployment, whether middle aged or youth unemployment, whether male or female unemployment. It has maintained and increased the family stress which comes about when there is unemployment. This has happened because Labor's priorities are with the haves. They are not with families or the coming generation. The Australian Labor Party has a variety of policies whose emphases, thrusts and priorities are to single units, to use the ALP jargon, and which do not emphasise mutual support, help and guidance. We have seen the same thing in education. We have seen a failure to deliver promises on public education, to ease the burden on students and to maintain in our tertiary institutions support for every student. These families have increased the stress upon Australia's families. Positive harm has been done to them. It has become harder to establish new schools where they are wanted by parents for the members of their families. We have seen the removal of tiny subsidies given to halls of residence at universities and colleges, subsidies which make access for poorer members of society-non-metropolitan Australians-to tertiary education that much easier. The Government favours institutions, systems and governments as providers of education over parents and students. We have seen other things such as the scandal associated with video pornography . This Government has been quite willing to facilitate the entry and dissemination of the most awful material. I am not in favour of censorship but people fail to understand that families in Australia who live in single family homes tend to have one living area. Some of the material which has come in and which Labor has consistently refused to address is available to the youngest in our community, the very ones who are not of mature mind and who are not able to make their own mature decisions about what they should watch. This is another failure to support families in Australia. Another failure is in the area of criminal activity. Our families want to be secure in an honest society for themselves and their children. This Government has been running dead for a year and a half on every approach which has sought to have it deal in a vigorous way with organised criminal activity in Australia. My own State of New South Wales, under a tarnished Labor Premier, is like an open sewer in its criminal activities and the refusal of that Government, until forced by public opinion, to do anything about it. Even then it does too little. To extend that dilatory approach of Labor, if it allows even one criminal to recruit even one more person to heroin use or one young girl into prostitution is a price not worth paying. It is a further attack upon the families who are trying to look after themselves and who are finding it very difficult in the face of organised crime. Many people do not comprehend the extent or quantum of the burden which families bear. Quite recently the Institute of Family Studies released a survey which indicated some of the costs involved in bringing up children. I note that the West Australian of Sunday, 20 October-last Sunday-stated: Latest figures show that at today's prices two children would cost $80,000 to feed, clothe and provide with basic needs from when they enter the nest until they can legally leave it at 16. This is the kind of burden which Australian families are trying to bear. Any program whereby families are taxed more, receive less or have their capacity to respond reduced is destructive of families, especially those of modest means and those who want to do nothing more than look after themselves and progress. Medicare is a perfect example of a Labor policy whereby families in Australia in all areas are worse off than they were previously. Medicare is one of the extra burdens which Australian families have to bear today. What does it involve ? It involves a compulsory levy of one per cent. What is this? It is just another form of income tax except that it is not called income tax. It falls upon every income earner in the family. No longer is it possible to buy family health insurance for what it costs. Every income earner pays a one per cent levy . He pays more than he used to pay. The levy is phased in for very low income earners and those at the lowest end of the scale. For every extra dollar they earn the levy comes in at an effective rate of 20 per cent. The figures are there to prove it. Under Medicare the gap has to be paid on every medical service. Those who want private insurance have to pay their premiums. Already every income earner is paying the levy, paying for private insurance and paying the gap. In addition, there is a payment of $12.40 per day in a public hospital and up to $40 a day in a private hospital if someone requires to be in hospital for more than 35 days and if a doctor feels unable to sign a certificate on that person's behalf. This is aggravated by the lack of alternative accommodation which should be available and which has been promised. The tax rebate on the costs of private health insurance has been lost. This is another impost which hurts the family. In addition, the costs of Medicare are continuing to rise. Those public costs which are not covered by the levy will have to be met from Consolidated Revenue. That, in turn, will require higher tax takes from every taxpayer which, again, reflects upon Australian families. What are they getting for this? They are getting lengthening waiting lists. They can never be sure that a bed will be available if they want one in a public hospital . That is what Medicare is supposed to promise. There is the 35-day rule, without adequate alternative accommodation available for those who need and want it. Therefore, elderly Australians are placed at particular risk. Their extended families are worrying about what will happen to their mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts. We do not want to be part of a socialist program for health. We know that Medicare offices are hard to find. We also object to having our receipts taken so that we cannot have them back when we go to get our rebates. Our policies, our emphasis and our approach to the Australian people and to families are different. We want all Australians to stand up for families. We want all Australians to declare their support and to come in behind the needs and aspirations of our families. We are doing so. We want the Labor Party to do so. Most Australians support this approach. Most Australians want families to prosper. We know, families know, everyone knows that it is a struggle today to cope and to make ends meet. Senator Crichton-Browne —How do they go on income splitting of families? Senator PETER BAUME —The Labor Party will not even look at income splitting of families even though the people who would be particularly helped are the low income families with a single breadwinner. Of course the Labor Party will not look at it, and my colleague will develop this later. Our policies are not only fair, they are positive assistance to Australian families. They are so positive and the recent income splitting is so well accepted that, just yesterday, Mr Eric Risstrom, being interviewed on the national Today show, said: I should say about 1.3 million families would gain under the Libs tax proposals . . . My colleagues will develop that argument further. It is true that 1.3 million Australian families will gain under the Liberals' tax proposals and under what we offer. I was attracted to the annual report of the Institute of Family Studies. Senator Crichton-Browne —An excellent document. Senator PETER BAUME —It is an excellent document. At page 1 of the report for 1982-83 the Institute had this to say: The family is not merely an isolated unit living its own private life, but rather a socially and politically structured unit which reflects the very nature of the society and its cultural values. The well-being and stability of Australian families should be one of the most basic concerns of governments at all levels. The policies and programs developed by governments determine the social and economic environment in which families have to operate. How true that is. My colleagues will make it quite clear that under this Labor Government families have not had that environment, they have not had that opportunity, and they have not been able to do what they wanted. Families in Australia can accept the stresses and can cope with the problems and difficulties if they get support. They can do it under the kinds of programs that the Liberal and National parties have put forward because we offer that support and we believe that Labor does not. It is not just a matter of who is providing dollars for particular programs. It is a fact that if a government presents itself, as Labor is doing, as being uninterested, uncomprehending, not caring, a heavy taxing government that takes more of the people's money, that protects them less and is less sympathetic, they will understand that their families are in more difficulty and more danger. Is it any wonder that families in Australia feel forlorn and threatened? What Australian families want and what they are not getting from this Government is a fair go. They want a chance to prosper. They want help to succeed. They want a recognition of their worth and importance. They will get it from the Liberals. My colleagues will illustrate point by point how our programs will help them. We urge the Government to review its approach and to stand up for families in Australia, as we intend to. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(3.29) —One would think that an election was coming on after hearing that speech by Senator Peter Baume. He repeated, at least 15 times, the phrase 'stand up for the family', which I understand has something to do with the forthcoming election. What a speech it was. I suppose it is a precursor of some of the speeches we will hear during the election campaign and some of the speeches we will hear this afternoon. In the 10 years I have been in this place I have not heard such a scattergun approach taken to what was, essentially, a fairly narrow matter of public importance which Senator Peter Baume brought up, namely: The failure of the Government to stand up for Australian families. We heard all the usual rhetoric and all the usual hyperbole that we hear in speeches such as this when people are getting excited on the other side of the chamber but do not have much of substance to say. We even heard references to that socialist mob on the other side. I certainly have not got an all-inclusive list of what the problems are, but we have been told that the Australian Labor Government in 18 months of government in this country-18 months in the last eight and a half years, incidentally, or a little of four and a half years in the last 29 or 30 years-has, in this short time, had a fearful effect on the family because of the introduction of Medicare; because of its failure to introduce income splitting, which is something we will talk about later and which the previous Government opposed when it was in power; because of our failure to provide support for families; because of the prices and incomes accord; because we are a socialist mob; because we fail to defeat crime; and because we wanted to import pornographic videos. Somehow Senator Peter Baume even brought in what he described as the tarnished Labor Premier of New South Wales. Senator Crichton-Browne —What an indicting list. Senator GRIMES —What a list! I always think the last one is a beauty from someone who comes from New South Wales and has been a member and supporter of the Liberal Party of Australia in New South Wales for so long. I think he should read Dr McCoy's book on organised crime in New South Wales. He also ought to read Bob Bottom's book, which so many people on that side of the chamber support . Bob Bottom said, as others have said-I have never heard it denied, not even by Senator Sir John Carrick-that the Liberal Premier of New South Wales was in receipt of $5,000 a week in bribes while he was Premier. McCoy points out that the rise in organised crime in New South Wales occurred during the time of the New South Wales Liberal Government. That is in Bob Bottom's book. Get up and deny it. Senator Baume came in here and, without producing any evidence, talked about the tarnished Labor Premier of New South Wales. If honourable senators are not willing to have these matters rebuffed I do not think they should come into this place. Senator Baume said that policies of government should establish the economic and social conditions for the assistance of families and to assist families to flourish. I do not think anyone on either side of the House would disagree with that statement, which I think Senator Baume quoted from the annual report of the Institute of Family Studies. One would imagine from Senator Baume' s statements about members of the Government that none of us knew anything about families, that we all suddenly appeared, developed and grew up in this country without being part of families. One would imagine that no member of the Government had had to rear children, had ever been unemployed or knew anything about families. Of course, one would imagine that the previous Government, including the former Ministers here, had some idea of how to support the family with their economic policy and had some record to turn to on how they had supported the families in the past. The first thing we should do is look at the record of the previous Government in its support of the family, in its efforts to provide the economic and social conditions, as Senator Baume said, for families to flourish in this community. Unemployment rose by 250,000 people in just over 12 months of the last Fraser Government. Every one of those people was a member of a family, every one of those people was part of a family unit, and every one of those people either supported a family or had to be supported by other members of the family. In the last few years of the last Liberal Governments, inflation rose until it was at its peak level of 11.5 per cent at which time the electorate of this country rejected that Government. That inflation rate had a devastating effect on every family in this country and that is why so many of these families voted to get rid of the previous Government. During the time of the previous Government interest rates were at a sustained high, much higher than the level of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and that affected every member of every family in this country who was trying to borrow money to achieve home ownership. During the time of the previous Government the number of home approvals and the number of homes built dropped to an all time low because members of families could not afford either the land or the cost of building homes. During the time of the previous Government individual members of families who voted in this community got thoroughly fed up and disillusioned with the policies of the previous Government. In the last 18 months members of those families have seen inflation halved, unemployment reduced, 250,000 people in jobs who were not in jobs before-all of them members of families-interest rates lowered and the highest rate of economic growth in the Western world. That is why the polls in this country still show that those individuals who are members of families still support the Labor Government. But members of families have more than that. They have a sense of confidence that there is some future in this country which they did not have a short 18 months ago. People in families and in businesses have a feeling of confidence that we are going somewhere in this country, that economic recovery will not be just an economic pick-up but sustained economic improvement. These facts have been supplemented by a couple of things which families cannot but notice. They cannot but notice that, in the next couple of weeks, the vast majority of them will receive a tax cut of $7.60 a week. They are real tax cuts; tax cuts which will be reflected in people's pay packets in the next few days. These are not vague statements about tax reform and they are not statements which people cannot follow. We have the extraordinary situation in which the person who was Treasurer of this country through those years when the previous Government became discredited -who would again be Treasurer if the present Opposition came into office in the near future-said on the night he introduced the Opposition's tax policy that someone like Mr Keating or myself would gain $66 a week from this new tax policy . The next afternoon, 24 hours later, he had to say: 'Oh no, it looks as though I am wrong. That will be only a $7.40 saving'. What an extraordinary situation when the potential Treasurer, the architect of the tax policy, does not know what those tax changes will be. One can understand that his first feeling was correct. He felt comfortable with it because all the tax cuts of the previous Government went in that sort of proportion to the more wealthy people in this community. Mr Howard is no longer so sure. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, is no longer so sure, after Mr Howard's statement, what will be the effects of that tax policy which they cobbled together to assist families. We think the community will think the policy is a joke. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, said in Question Time today, the Opposition cannot even be specific about when such a policy will be introduced. The Opposition said that it would make a start on it next year if it is in government. It would make a start on it, but it is not sure when. The Opposition knows that the reason is that it would cost a considerable amount in forgone revenue to introduce and it would have to find that revenue elsewhere. We are told that that revenue will be found by increasing indirect taxes, although we do not know what those indirect taxes will be because that will come as a result of an inquiry. But whatever their form, one thing is sure: If we do our sums we will see that those tax cuts will cost about $8 a week for each householder in this country. As well as that they will add to inflation. Families and individuals in families in this country have had seven years of increasing inflation and increasing taxes. I think people will soon be aware that this tax policy, which obviously will be a point raised by Opposition speakers this afternoon, is an illusory policy. We do not even know when it will start. The potential Treasurer is not even sure how it will be introduced and what its effect will be. This Government, in 18 months, has provided real tax cuts. This Government has provided tax cuts which will be reflected in pay packets in the next few days. But what about the previous Government's record on its support for families? What about some of the support that was mentioned by Senator Peter Baume today? I suppose one of the most extraordinary statements made by Senator Baume was that the present Government, in its 18 months in power, has not even maintained the family allowance at the level at which it was introduced by the previous Liberal Government. The family allowance was introduced in 1976 to replace child endowment and the tax rebate for dependent children. The Party which I represent supported its introduction but we pointed out that if that family allowance was not increased regularly or indexed its value would quickly fall away with the rate of inflation we had at that time. That family allowance was increased by the Fraser Government only once in the next seven years. The rate for the third and subsequent children was increased in 1981 by 50 per cent and for the first and second children it was increased by 50 per cent in 1982. Notwithstanding these increases, in the period June 1976 to March 1983 the real value of the family allowance declined by some 22.5 per cent. In fact it declined at a considerably faster rate between 1976 and 1981. Is that maintaining the support of the family through the family allowance? To raise that family allowance to its 1976 level would cost $550m in a full year. As Minister for Social Security in this country I would like to be able to announce that we will spend $550m on the family allowance to raise it to that level in one hit. But we are faced with a difficult and tight economic situation in this country. So we had to say: 'We must set priorities. We must ensure that the payments and increases to families in this country go to the families in most need'. We had to aim at the low income families which are particularly in difficulties. In seven years the previous Liberal-National Party Government increased the additional payment for children of pensioners and beneficiaries by just $2.50. In the whole of those seven years the poorest group in the community received an increase of $2.50, and the beneficiaries who received it were liable to tax. By contrast, this Government, because of a difficult economic situation, has given high priority to the needs of these families. In this year's Budget we increased the rate of the additional pension benefit for the family by $2 a week on top of the $2 increase we provided in last year's Budget. In 18 months we have increased these payments by 40 per cent to the people who are worst off in this community. I would have preferred to pay them even more but we had that difficult economic situation which we inherited from the previous Government. Opposition senators come into this chamber and have the gall to say that we have not supported the family because we did not increase the family allowance to the 1976 level, yet they never did it when they were in power. I point out that we increased those payments to the poorest families with children by that amount in a short 18 months. On top of other increases in assistance for low income families, a widow with two children, renting privately, will receive an additional $13.50 a week from this Government in November. That is a substantial increase, far beyond any increases that were ever given by the previous Government. That support is aimed at families who are in great need. We will continue to target our expenditure to those people in this community who, through no fault of their own, are bringing up children under extreme difficulties. We heard nothing from Senator Baume-we may hear something from other Opposition senators later-about children's services. Contrast the attitude of this Government-which in 18 months has provided for increases of $40m, almost 40 per cent, for the provision of new services for children in this country, which has concentrated those services in low socio-economic areas, which has provided a special economic needs subsidy for people on low incomes who need support to go to those services-with the previous Government's record of a nil increase in its last year and in fact a net decrease in real terms in its last two years in the children's services area because it said this was not a high priority and that this could not be provided under the difficult budgetary situations that prevailed. It is now coming out with a tax policy which says: 'We will provide a rebate for children's services which will cost some $200m'. That is revenue forgone of about $200m. It could not find the money when it was in government but it can find it now that it is in opposition. However it will provide it in a rebate form which will be of benefit only to those whose parents are paying tax, those in this community whose normal language is English, those who have two parents working, those who have one parent working and a dependent invalid or those who have one parent working full time and part time. Senator Messner —That is not the only aspect of the policy. Senator GRIMES —I ask Senator Messner to get up and read out the policy. When the Opposition talks about children's services, it says it will maintain the existing levels. There is no mention of increasing the number of services in the community. My colleagues Senator Coleman and Senator Ray will point out the other aspects. For anyone to suggest in this place, after the disaster that has befallen families in the seven years of the Fraser Government, that in 18 months the Labor Government has done other than improve the lot of families, particularly the low income families in this community, is a nonsense which will not be accepted by the electorate either now or in the future. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.48) — The family is the fundamental group unit of society. It is also the most natural unit to nurture the young and to care for the aged. The family has a prior existence to the state and prior rights over those of the state. It is essential to the common good and essential to the future of any society that the government of that society, in this case the elected government, stand up for the family. How best is a family supported by government? First of all, it is essential, in my view, for a government, for a parliament, to create an atmosphere in which families can flourish, in which the objectives of families ingrained in nature can be achieved. It is essential for governments and parliaments to ensure that there is legislation which will reflect the view and the fact that the family is the fundamental group unit of society and that it deserves the protection therefore of society, unless that society is doomed to extinction. The least that families can expect is for parliaments to pass legislation which will ensure that the parents of families feel that they are parenting in a responsive society. Sadly that is not the case , and has not been the case for some time. Too many parents at the moment feel that they are parenting in an unresponsive society. Many thousands of parents are expressing growing concern about the unnecessary pressures that are being applied to the young, the unnecessary stress that is being placed on members of the family, including particularly the mothers of dependent children. Thousands of parents throughout Australia are concerned about not only the economic prospects that their children will have in Australia's future society but also their prospects as sane and happy human beings. I have, in this place and outside, drawn attention to the fact that amendments which were made on 1 February this year to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations and the new Australian Capital Territory Ordinance for the first time legalise the introduction and distribution of hard core pornography into this country. Of course it could be argued that before this was legalised there had been a trickle and then a flood of violent and pornographic literature and videos into this country, and this material was then distributed. As I have explained in great detail, and I do not wish to say it again to the Senate, the rot set in as far back as 1973 when the then Attorney-General, now Mr Justice Murphy, issued instructions to the Australian Customs Service-he was then also the Minister in charge of Customs matters-which were tantamount to asking Customs officers to turn a blind eye to the importation of this material. Of course at that time the material was not of the qualitative-if one can use that word-nature that it is now. At that time videos were hardly heard of. But the trickle has become a flood and parents are very concerned about the future sanity and happiness of their children. Parents are also concerned about the economic future of their children. So many parents whom I know and who have children in the last stages of schooling are concerned about the children's job prospects. In a matter of public importance last week I pointed to the very sad fact that in the metropolitan area of Hobart , in my State of Tasmania, 33 per cent of male youths are unemployed. That situation is reflected in many areas of Australia. It is nothing less than a national scandal and a national tragedy. Yesterday I pointed out that there appears to be a structural appointments procedure in the Commonwealth Public Service which discriminates against the youth of this country. I pointed out that youths-the 15 to 19-year-olds-now comprise only 4.2 per cent of the total number of staff in the Australian Public Service. The Public Service Board definition of youth is those aged between 15 and 20-years-old inclusive. Honourable senators should compare this figure with the following. In 1966, 22.6 per cent of staff in the Public Service came within the definition of youth. In 1974 this figure fell to 12.4 per cent and it is now 6.7 per cent. Yesterday I tried to get the Senate to express its view to the Public Service Board that in an expanding area of the economy the Board should not discriminate against youth. I pointed out that had its policy of recruiting youth been the same as it was in 1971 there would now be 70,000 more youths employed in the State and Federal public services without one addition being made to the staff ceilings. I come to another aspect of the family. I believe that it is incumbent not only on the Government but also on the Parliament as a whole to ensure that the family situation in this nation is preserved. It was mentioned by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, that for far too long family allowances have been allowed to be eroded to such an extent that they are now down to about 50 per cent of what they would be had they kept pace with inflation. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a Commonwealth Parliamentary Library table relating to this matter. Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY STATISTICS GROUP Family Allowance ($ per month) Existing Estimated at May 1976 (a) May 1984(b) Loss(c) First Child 15.20 22.80 33.00 10.20 Second Child 21.70 32.55 47.15 14.60 Third Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fourth Child 26.00 39.00 56.50 17.50 Fifth and Subsequent Children 30.35 45.55 65.90 20.35 (a) Actual rates as at May 1984. (b) Rate from May 1984 if May 1976 rates had been indexed by movements in the Consumer Price Index. (c) Difference between Estimated and Existing rates. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator HARRADINE —A family with one child is now $10.20 a month worse off; a family with two children is $14.60 worse off; a family with three children is $ 17.50 worse off; a family with four children is $17.50 worse off; and a family with five or more children is $20.35 worse off. That situation is of great concern to people. I said in 1976 when this family allowance scheme replaced the old child endowment and tax rebate scheme that unless family allowances were indexed it would be a three card trick. I have come to the conclusion that families have been seen off. If anybody had suggested that in 1976 the tax rebate scheme would be abolished there would have been a revolution in this country. I agreed with the proposition that there ought to be a transfer from the hip pocket to the purse. The Government did that at the time but since then it has been dipping in to the mother's purse and taking out the money which the husband put in it via the exchange of tax rebates for children with family allowances. That is a disgraceful situation. The Parliament has not stood up for the family. I congratulate the Opposition for at least looking at the question of income splitting. If high income groups, business and professional people can split their income why should not ordinary, average families do the same? Has the Parliament stood up for the family? The answer to that question is no. Honourable senators will recall that last year, during the debate on the Family Law Act, I proposed an amendment which was designed to ensure that separated married partners contemplating divorce attend an early meeting with a marriage counsellor for the purpose of considering the legal, social and financial consequences of a dissolution of the marriage, particularly its effects on any children, and to consider reconciliation. That amendment was thrown out the door. I am concerned that Senator Peter Baume, who brought up this matter of public importance, did not vote for that amendment but a lot of others on the Opposition-I think 22 of them-did. I believe that if such an amendment had been made to the Act it would have had a marked effect on the public perception of what the Parliament thinks about marriage as being the fundamental group unit of society and we would not have the sorry state that we now have of the poverty that has resulted from many separations and divorces. Time does not permit me to go into-as I had intended-the attitude of the Parliament to marriage as well as the family, but we all ought to stand up for the family. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.03) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance entitled: The failure of the Government to stand up for Australian families. One does not have to look far to be able to find confirmation of why the Government does not stand up for Australian families. First of all we need to look no further than the Australian Labor Party platform which was drawn up in July 1984, only a few months ago. In that platform we have a clear statement, for instance in the area of taxation, which provides that the ALP maintains the individual as the tax unit for personal income tax purposes and places emphasis on the social security system rather than the tax system for further family assistance. That is the stated aim of this Labor Government. Apparently it seeks to assist the family through social security measures rather than through tax measures. Recently in a 3AW radio broadcast the Treasurer, Mr Keating, stated: Our policy is not in favour of the family unit as a tax paying unit. The point we made is simply that this Government has no regard for the family. While it continues to impose higher and higher taxes on people it has no regard to the effect of that tax on families. It has the cop-out that it will look at matters from a social security point of view only. Families will always suffer as their incomes are eroded by the impact of government taxation. Let us take the Government at its word. Let us assume that it is sincere in saying that it will help the family through the social security system. Let us look at the point which my colleague Senator Baume raised in that context. He spoke of family allowances and the failure of the Government to introduce family allowances and increase them. I remind the Senate that it was the Liberal Government which introduced the system of family allowances in the first place in 1976. Since coming to power, this Government has done nothing to increase the amount of family allowances. This flies right in the face of what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) told us a few minutes ago. He said that in fact there had been increases. I find no evidence of that, having raised the question with the Parliamentary Library. Again, I can assume only that the Minister is misleading us as he has in so many other ways in this debate. The Minister also made the further assertion that during the period of the Liberal Government there had been no increases at all in family allowances. That is patently wrong as well. In fact, there were three increases in the period between the establishment of the system in 1976 and when we went out of office in March 1983. All these were substantial increases. We know who stands up for the family, and it is not the Government. Hence the importance of this matter which has been so ably brought forward today by Senator Baume, the shadow Minister for Education who is from New South Wales. The truth of the matter is that the word 'family' is simply not in the vocabulary of the Australian Labor Party. Its documents are not sprinkled with references to the family rather they are sprinkled with references to individuals. This indicates the great difference between the Liberals and the Australian Labor Party. We stand up for the family; apparently the Labor Party has no regard for the family at all. It reminds me of the famous Economic Planning Advisory Council meeting in May when a question was raised by Mr Bruce McKenzie, President of the Australian Council of Social Service, who asked the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, what he was going to do about the poor in the course of developing his policies relating to the accord. Mr Hawke said that the poor were irrelevant and that they had no part in this economy. It is clear that the Government has the same attitude about the family. A few minutes ago the Minister referred to the new taxation proposals of the Opposition. Obviously he is so shocked by the impact of these proposals that he is using every piece of hysterical hyperbole to try to knock down the arguments in favour of them. Even more than that, he has resorted to misleading the Senate by saying that the Liberal and National parties have no concern for the needy who would not receive the benefit of the proposed child care rebate. I quote from our policy document where this point is specifically made: Specifically, the Liberal and National Parties will: continue to provide assistance to the range of child care centres and to provide additional subsidies to low income families and individuals with special needs; support needy families with children with special problems (particular disabled children) with respite care for both short and long terms; I know this is not within the intellectual purview of the Government because it simply cannot come to terms with this next point: institute a pilot study into the provision of privately owned and operated child care centres to establish their feasibility to provide services to low income and regionally deprived families. I know that Labor senators will not take that kind of suggestion on board because of their socialist principles. They are not interested in the fact that privately owned centres can indeed provide as good a service as any community based centre. The Minister will not accept that proposition. He has the temerity to argue against our policy in this area, having not even read it or looked into the question at all. Let us turn to the positive elements of our policy in relation to taxation. I acknowledge, as do all senators on this side, that the family is the base of our society. It underpins all else in the community and should be supported by community groups and voluntary organisations within society. In this way we help each other and bring Australians along with a sense of mutual concern, underpinned by voluntary organisations. Our policy in relation to taxation is designed to put more equity into the system so that single income families have as much tax benefit as do double income families. Senator Giles interjected a little while ago with the astonishing comment that this proposal was somehow inequitable, but the fact is that the tax system provides a special benefit to two income families at the moment. It is that anomaly, that positive inequity in favour of two income families, that our policy seeks to correct. That is a basic change which the socialists cannot accept. Senator Coleman —No wonder the economists cannot understand your taxation policies. Senator MESSNER —We know that Senator Coleman has no understanding of these matters and therefore she cannot possibly reason her way through them. The point is that these are important elements in providing more underpinning for families to enable them to look after themselves and their individual members and to provide support in times of need. We see this as very important. There are any number of intra family problems that we know of today. Senator Peter Baume has referred to those in great detail. They include the problems of drug abuse, criminality, prostitution, sexual abuse within families, physical and mental abuse and domestic violence, runaways and the institutionalisation of children. All these are colossal difficulties arising from intra-family problems. Our policies aim to strengthen families so that they can better solve those problems through counselling, financial support and support of non-government organisations. Where is the Government on these matters? What does it say about these things? The word 'family' is not in the Government's vocabulary or in its lexicon. ' Family' is not anywhere in its rhetoric because it does not understand or want to understand the problems that arise in families. In this context I mention particularly the importance of migrant families and the difficulties they have in adjusting to the Australian community. They see the commitment that we on this side have to the adjustment of taxation arrangements in favour of single income families. In this context I wish to mention also the position of the aged. We have a commitment to develop community support services to aid the family and to assist those members of the family and the extended family who are aging. This is the single greatest challenge in this area at the moment. It is not a problem for 30 , 40 and 50 years hence, it is a problem that is with us now because people are living longer. The real problem arising is amongst those aged people, mainly over 80 years of age, who may be suffering from Alzheimers disease or reaching senility, and who require constant assistance. In the main, the family is providing that care. However, we see this Government attacking that family group through the assets test and the introduction of the savings tax on lump sum superannuation-the first foot in the door for the introduction of a wider capital gains tax after the election, if it is re-elected. That is what the Government is on about-the destruction of the ability of families to look after themselves through the maintenance and saving of assets throughout their working lives. Families do that so that they can look after themselves rather than, as will happen under the Government's proposals, have their capacity to do so destroyed. Senator Robert Ray —You are a second rate carpetbagger. Senator MESSNER —Senator Robert Ray casts comments. I suppose we ought to answer one or two of them. Let us have this as a comment: Does Senator Robert Ray know that there was a 7.3 per cent decline in the relative position of the disposable incomes of the age pensioners, invalid pensioners and married unemployment beneficiaries, compared with the poverty line drawn in November 1982? I remind him that that was just before his Government came into office. There was a 7.3 per cent decline in the disposable incomes of the most poor. I refer him to the Brotherhood of St Laurence if he wants to check that information. That is what the Labor Government thinks of the family. It wants to destroy the family by undermining its economic balance and security, through the assets test, through the lump sum superannuation tax and by imposing special penalties on pensioners. Not only that; contrary to all of Labor members' previous statements made when in opposition, the Government has imposed more taxation on pensioners. Looking at next year compared with 1982-83, when an average single pensioner with $20 a week extra income paid $20 a year tax, the figure under this generous Labor Government will rise to $109. That is what this Labor Government is all about. It is destroying people's capacity to look after themselves and, in the meantime , it is carrying on terrorist activities in the community. As a special case, I instance the assets test and the lump sum superannuation tax. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.17) —It is always a doubtful pleasure to follow Senator Messner in debate because I am never terribly sure what he has been debating. It is obvious that he has not been debating the matter of public importance that is before us today. We have had a weird and wonderful motley collection of these matters of public importance over the last few weeks. On a similar matter of public importance a couple of weeks ago I had occasion to suggest that it was rather like the bookmaker's tout-that those on the Opposition benches were so bereft of ideas that what they were doing was running them from one chamber to the other. They cannot even use that as an excuse now, because the other chamber is not sitting. However, I remind those people who are at all interested of what the matter of public importance is about. This is the way in which it is put forward by Senator Peter Baume, a senator for New South Wales, as a matter of public importance: The failure of the Government to stand up for Australian families. I regard Australians, no matter where they come from, as being part of the Australian family. It is not that long ago, however, that members of the Opposition were intent on dividing part of that Australian family by using racism as a means of developing a feeling of division within the community and, therefore, of winning seats-they thought-not only in this Senate but in the House of Representatives. That is how much regard they had for the Australian family. Senator Peter Baume —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Do not the Standing Orders prevent an honourable senator misrepresenting the Opposition's policy? There has been no appeal to racism at all. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no such standing order. Senator COLEMAN —It is interesting, Mr Deputy President, to see that one can cut Opposition senators to the quick when one speaks the truth. I just want to follow my Deputy Leader's example by giving a few comparisons. Having become a member of the Senate in 1974 and, because of the disgraceful thing that occurred in this chamber, having been relegated to the Opposition benches for seven years , and now having returned to the Government side, let me relate a few things about the former Government's attitude to the family. I can remember coming into this chamber time after time, and writing letters to various Ministers and virtually getting down on my hands and knees, begging for a few thousand dollars, or even a few hundred dollars, for such things as women' s refuges, children's centres, day care centres, and all those things that are, suddenly, so frantically important to Senator Messner. He was saying that we have no care for those who are the subject of abuse within the family, that we have no care for those who find themselves in some manner the victims of drug abuse, be they drug abusers or the families of drug abusers. He spoke, in particular, about migrant families and the special needs. I remember trying to get some refuge for migrant women who were the subject of physical abuse in their families, who needed special care and attention outside the bounds of the normal women's refuges that had been made available. I could not get one cent from the former Government. Let us look at some of the matters that Senator Grimes raised which I wish to develop. It is important to keep reminding people that the former Government had seven years in which to do an awful lot of things and chose not to do them. It said, for instance, that it would make family security its major political plank . It did nothing for family security. In fact, in the last 12 months of the Fraser Government unemployment rose by 250,000. Two hundred and fifty thousand members of families became unemployed in one 12-month period of the former Government. Two hundred and fifty thousand families suddenly found that they were on social security benefits-and they were pretty meagre. Some of the things that we have done so far because of our concern for the welfare of the family-the welfare of the Australian family for which today we are being told we are failing to stand up-have had to be done because of the previous Government's attitude and its lack of intestinal fortitude, to put it in a manner which can be recorded in Hansard. These are the thoughts of not just the Government but individuals and organisations throughout the world. If that is doubted, I remind honourable senators of an event which took place only a couple of weeks ago. At present we have the highest rate of economic growth in the Western world. That is not just idle talk. It is an acknowledged fact. It has been recognised by leading economists and by other governments, and it has certainly been recognised by individuals, some of whom have a much better knowledge of economics than honourable senators opposite. As a result of that economic growth, we have seen a tremendous increase in the number of jobs available. As a result of those jobs being available, we have had a subsequent drop in the numbers of unemployed. As I said, in the last 12 months of the Fraser Government unemployment rose by 250,000. We are now reducing that number. We are creating jobs and stability. Senator MacGibbon —In the Public Service. Senator COLEMAN —We are creating security for the family-which is something about which Senator MacGibbon would not know a great deal. We have these former Ministers-I stress the word 'former' because they will be staying on the Opposition benches for a long time-having the audacity to bring forward this matter of public importance as if they have an option on support for the Australian family, as if that is part of their prerogative as members of the Liberal Party of Australia and members of the National Party of Australia, that they are the only people who have any concern for the Australian family. They do this as if it is part of their God-given right to rule, that ethic that they put forward every now and then-that no one else has the necessary sense of responsibility, morality or anything else to be on the Treasury benches. I remind Senator Baume that we are on the treasury bench and we will remain here for many years to come because the Australian public sees through these matters which the Opposition brings before us. The Opposition brings forward time wasting matters when we have a large number of Bills that still need to come before this chamber. Senator Baume knows as well as I do that he as much as anybody else is intent on this House getting up tonight. We have seen it all before. Senator Baume and I have been members of the Senate for 10 years. We have seen this happen at the end of every single session. Is it not amazing how quickly things can be done if it is a matter of catching the early morning plane or the late night flight. The Opposition's attitude in government belies the words that it has put forward here. It is filibustering. It is wasting the time of the Parliament and the time of the Australian people. I have already mentioned some of the things that we have done in the last 18 months. Australia now has the highest economic growth in the Western world. We have reduced unemployment and we have created jobs. But other things have come about as a result of our actions. Next week the vast majority of Australian taxpayers will find they have an increase of anything up to $7.60 in their pay packet; they will have more disposable income. More disposable income provides greater security for the Australian family. The point which Senator Baume and other speakers-Senator Messner and Senator Harradine-made is that we do not have a care for the Australian family. We have a greater care for the welfare and the well-being of the Australian family than was ever evidenced in this Parliament when the Opposition occupied the treasury bench. Because of our concern for the low income families of this country, not only have we rearranged taxes in order that those families will receive additional tax benefits but also we have increased the exemption level of tax, which means that an additional amount of money is available to those low income families. Because we were concerned about the Australian family we increased the family income supplement by a further $2 a week on top of the increase in last year's Budget. There has been a total increase of 40 per cent in less than 18 months. How does that compare with the performance of the former Government? In the midst of great brouhaha in this chamber and elsewhere the former Government decided to replace the child endowment and the tax rebate for dependent children with the family allowance. That occurred back in 1976 and, having 'done its duty ' by the family, it promptly forgot about the family. Senator Messner said today that there were three adjustments to the family allowance. That is not so. In 1981 the former Government adjusted the payments for a section of the family allowance and in 1982 it adjusted the payments for the other section of the family allowance. Senator Peter Baume —And 1978 as well. Senator COLEMAN —The former Government did nothing for the Australian family. Senator Baume is just expressing guilt today because he is now concerned that the Australian Government has the support of the Australian family. The former Government cared so little that at the end of its seven years in office the only thing the Australian family had to show for its care and attention was a decrease in the real value of the family allowance by more than 20 per cent. It is perfectly obvious to me-I am sure it is perfectly obvious to the majority of people who are listening to this debate-that the Parliament's sitting for four consecutive weeks has had an effect on some members of the Opposition. It certainly has an effect on some members of the Opposition because they have actually had to dream up this matter of public importance for themselves as the other chamber is not sitting. That is painfully obvious. Senator Baume put forward the view in his speech that the family is a social responsibility. No one, certainly no one on the Government benches, would deny that responsibility. When we were in opposition we made every attempt to get the then Government to accept some of that responsibility. We found it very difficult, but now members of the Opposition come in here with a holier than thou attitude and suggest that the Labor Government has in some way failed to support the Australian family. The Australian family knows which party supports it. The Australian family spoke very loudly and very clearly on 5 March last year. The Australian family will speak very loud and very clearly on 1 December this year and it will demonstrate once again that it has the utmost confidence in the Australian Labor Party. It will totally reject the overtures of the Liberal and National Parties. I believe the Senate should totally reject this matter of public importance and treat it with the contempt that it deserves. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.31) —The Senate is discussing a most important matter this afternoon, that is, the failure of the Government to stand up for Australian families. It would probably be difficult to contemplate a more important matter. I regret the comments that were made by the previous speaker, Senator Coleman, with regard to racism. Her comments were untrue and uncalled for. I particularly regret that they came from Senator Coleman because she is a senator who is highly respected in this place. I think that her attitude indicates that perhaps a touch of desperation is sneaking into the Government in the light of this early election. Perhaps it indicates that the Australian people are just starting to wake up to this Government. After the flattering opinion poll figures, it is clear that a cynical 'take the people for granted' attitude has emerged. The Government is so confident that it does not believe it even needs to seek the endorsement of the Australian people to a specific program during this election campaign. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, says: 'Trust me'. Mr Acting Deputy President, I suspect you remember that in the last election campaign the Prime Minister condemned the then coalition Government for calling an early election. He called it political opportunism and assured Australia that it would never happen under a Labor Government. Barely 18 months into his term of office we are going to the people. The Prime Minister is taking us to the people for one reason; that is, he believes it is an opportune time for him to gain a second term. He wants to take advantage of the breaking of the drought and to take advantage of the turnaround in the world economy and to avoid facing the real concerns that are obviously further down the line. I only wish that I had time to detail those concerns. When we have a public debt that is now estimated to be in the vicinity of $90 billion, which involves an average interest bill of $34 a week for each taxpayer, one can understand the consequences that will be faced by the next government further down the line. The Prime Minister is refusing to be judged over a full term. His was the party which wanted to introduce fixed term parliaments so that governments would be judged over full terms. The Government, in its short period in office, has been preoccupied with structures and regimentality. As the political arm of the union movement, it is not surprising that it has the mentality that attempts to regiment Australia into interest groups with spokesmen. So we have the concept of summit meetings with representative spokesmen who are said to have the voice of Australia. We have summits that are then further syphoned to produce organisations with spokesmen for spokesmen who become the Economic Planning Advisory Council-the representatives of the Australian people in economic matters. Then we have the illusion that to confer with this minute group is to communicate, according to the Government, with the Australian people. What a convenience, but what a falsity! Who misses out on having a voice? The majority of Australians. Who on EPAC represents the housewives, the working mothers, the pensioners, the students and the families? In its effort to regiment Australia into convenient working groups with which it is easy to reach agreement and, therefore, to claim consensus, the interests of the majority of Australians have been lost. The views of families in all their various structures are not heard. We have heard in this debate Senator Baume considering how families have not been represented by and have not benefited from this Government in education and health. We have heard from Senator Messner how families have been neglected in the areas of social security support. I concentrate on the fact that families have not been considered in the area of taxation. What are the taxation policies the Government is putting to people for endorsement or rejection at this election? Of course it will not say. The Prime Minister just says: 'Trust me'. That is not good enough. Families are entitled to know what are this Government' s taxation plans. What does the Government say? It says: 'We will hold an inquiry and possibly another summit and then we will determine and implement'. That means that the Government either has no position, no views or it refuses to take the Australian people into its confidence. One must suspect that the answer is the latter. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, comes into this chamber and says that there has been no discussion of a capital gains tax. The same day we hear the Prime Minister saying: 'Yes, we will hold an inquiry and if it recommends capital gains tax of course we already understand that certain matters will be excluded. We will be excluding, for example, the family home'. Clearly Labor knows what it wants to do but it is going to camouflage it with an inquiry or another summit. There have been many inquiries in this country into the taxation system. We know of the report of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee. We know of the report of the Mathews Committee of Inquiry into Inflation and Taxation. We know of the continual conferences, papers and books that have been issued on the subject of taxation. We know of the research institutes that constantly pursue the subject, one of which I am a fellow, the Australian Institute of Taxation. The material on the subject is on the table. It is ample. What is not needed is more information. What is needed is decision making. Another summit has been suggested. We know now how this Government's summits work. The Government appoints and selects the participants. It chairs a summit. It provides working papers and an agenda. The Government drafts the communique before the summit commences. In other words, the Government gets the results it wants and then says that those results have been endorsed by consensus of the Australian people. The families of Australia will not be fooled by that again. By contrast, the Party I represent, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the coalition have come clean. We have our tax policy. It has been made public. We have designed it to benefit families because that is where we assess the greatest need to be. We have put it up and we are prepared to debate it. We are happy for the Australian people to make a judgment upon it. We recognise that additional expenses are involved in raising children. The tax system should recognise that fact and be supportive of the family. I remind the Senate that the last coalition Government helped one-income families. For example, it increased the value of the spouse rebate for families with children from $400 in 1976 to $1,030 in the year in which it lost government. In its last two Budgets it increased family allowances by 50 per cent. The Liberals now offer to go one step further, to reduce the income tax of families with children by allowing for a split of income. That will particularly benefit families where only one spouse is working but it will also benefit families where one spouse is working, say, part time or earning a small income. However, we recognise that, for economic reasons or simply choice, some families will desire to have both spouses working. We know that unless the second income is particularly high it tends to be gobbled up by child care costs. So in this program we are also offering tax rebates for child care in such circumstances. That benefit will also apply to single parent families, the type of family that is particularly in need, and will, no doubt, be received extremely favourably. We would like to have a specific timetable for the implementation of that program, but in the economic circumstances in which this Government-the highest spending government in Australia's peacetime history-has placed Australia it would be irresponsible of us to attempt to set out a timetable. But we will do it as soon as responsibly possible. We have set out the program, philosophies and principles and we will implement them. What is this Government's situation by contrast? Labor has made no attempt to maintain the value of family provisions, the dependent spouse rebate or family allowances. Who can remember the policy speech of Mr Hawke during the last election campaign in which he promised to increase the dependent spouse rebate which he said would result in tax cuts for families of $2 per week? What has the Government done with respect to its much vaunted tax relief, the reduction of income tax? It has reduced income tax but it has increased the number of tax brackets. The average taxpayer is now being forced into a 47 per cent taxation bracket. The income tax cut has therefore become known as the Clayton's tax cut. Let us not just take my word. Let us look at what Eric Risstrom, Secretary of the Australian Taxpayers Association, said when asked: What do you see as the advantages of the Liberals' proposed tax changes? Who will stand to gain? He answered: I should say about 1.3 million families would gain under the Liberals' tax proposal. One important thing that does not seem to have come out of many of the comments is that in recent Budgets almost one million people will be moving into a 46c or 47c in the dollar tax bracket. But they are not the only two examples of where this Government has failed. Tax paying families will remember that this Government very rapidly removed the home loan rebate. But do they also remember Mr Hawke's promise to continue to provide security for home buyers to meet their housing repayments? He said: 'We will retain tax rebates for home loan interest payments'. That is another broken promise. The health insurance rebate soon went under this Government. It went within months of the Government coming into office. Do honourable senators remember Mr Hawke's promise on that? He said that Labor would keep intact existing financial arrangements in the health field until the introduction of Medicare. It did not happen. Indexation of excise duties is another example of where this Government has failed. Who suffers most under indexation of excise duties? It is families who are not well to do who suffer. Time for this debate is extremely limited. This Government has been so busy congratulating itself and bathing in the glory of self-adulation that it has failed to understand the real needs of a critically important sector, the backbone of Australian society, that is, its families. We do not have to hide our past. We are not afraid to put forward our positive program for the future. We regret only that the Labor Government is not prepared to do the same. However , the people of Australia are not stupid. The Labor Government will suffer the consequences of its actions at the forthcoming election. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(4.43) —This matter of public importance reflects on the concerns of Australian families. If there is one concern Australian families have which is pre-eminent, it is the future direction of the Australian economy. If one were looking for any empirical evidence as to what families in Australia think about the economy and this Government one need look no further than the Age poll published a week ago. Its sample of people was asked: 'Who are the best economic managers in Australia?' Fifty-four per cent responded: 'The Labor Government'. Only 25 per cent of those surveyed chose the Liberal Party of Australia, the group that hopes to come into government on 1 December. No doubt when the biggest opinion poll in this country is held, on 1 December, well over 54 per cent of the public will respond in the same way as it did to the Age poll and choose a Labor government. If one asks oneself why, one should look at the key economic indicators, most of which were ignored by Senator Hill in his brief , 15-minute contribution. The first and key concern of families is jobs. When one looks at this Government's employ- ment policies one finds that over 250,000 jobs have been created since we came to power in March 1983. Let us compare that with the previous 12 months of the Liberal Government, of which each one of the speakers today was a member and a supporter, when 187,000 jobs disappeared down the plug hole, affecting all those families that Opposition senators now profess some sort of concern for today. Where was their concern then, when 187,000 jobs went down the drain? If we look at the unemployment figures in March 1983, 10.4 per cent of Australians were willing to participate in the work force but were unemployed. Today the figure is 8.8 per cent and falling. The Liberals blamed the drought for unemployment; they blamed the world-wide recession and they blamed the unions. The one thing they have never done is blame themselves for adopting policies which encouraged unemployment in this country. I often wonder, listening to the bleatings of the Opposition, where the Fraserites are now. It has taken 18 months for them to forget their great leader , Fraser. It is a bit like Germany after the war when it was hard to find any nazis. I will not pursue the analogy too far, but there are no Fraserites opposite now-none whatsoever. He is just a terrible nightmare from the past, from those dismal seven years, those dreary, uninspiring, negative years that have all been forgotten about, only because those opposite now lust to get back into power. But the electorate is not so stupid as to forget what happened in those seven years, and it does not want a repeat dose. Let us look at the second major economic indicator, that is, inflation. When the Liberal Party of Australia left office, in the last year that it had charge of a Budget, in 1982-83, the inflation rate was 11.5 per cent. That was at a time when the Liberal Government itself admitted that the major fight was to be against inflation. The reality is that it did not win one round in that fight. The rate was 11.5 per cent in the last financial year in which that Government had a Budget. Compare that with the figure for 1983-84, when the inflation rate is 6.9 per cent and heading down. We are now able to compete properly with our major trading partners, given the inflation rate we have been able to achieve. What would happen if by some fluke the Liberals came back to power? I predict that inflation would rocket for two basic reasons. Firstly, the Liberal Party, the party opposite, has never given a commitment to the continuation of the prices and incomes accord. It has given a commitment to destroy it. That would be the signal for a wage push and in turn an inflationary rise. The second thing that would happen-I refer to a document from which Senator Hill just quoted and which he said was a marvellous tax document-is that it would reintroduce indirect taxation with the consequential effect on the inflation rate. Let us look at the figures. The amount of tax it claims to take off is $1,500m. That will be taken into account with an increase in expenditure of $2,500m. The Opposition is also on record as saying that it wants to reduce the Budget deficit by $2.5 billion. That comes to a grand total of $6,500m that it has to find in its first Budget. If it is to find that by way of indirect taxation, inflation will rocket in this country; it will go through the roof. What we have to ask is what sort of massive indirect taxation those opposite will put into place. They keep saying that the Labor Government should come clean. But why do they not come clean? Will it be a value added tax or a consumption tax? What sort of indirect tax will the Opposition put on the people of Australia? I turn to the third and critical area-interest rates. When the group opposite left government, interest rates were 13.5 per cent for first home loan mortgages . They are now down to 11.5 per cent. The previous Government made heaps of promises that it would reduce interest rates. All it ever did in government was to put them up. We have been in government and we have reduced these interest rates. One of the most critical things for any family in this country is a good rate of economic growth. The two things families are concerned with are a good rate of economic growth and a fair distribution of proceeds from that economic growth . The Fraser Government, the one of which Opposition senators were part, had a negative rate of economic growth for the first time in several decades. What an achievement that was! Are they proud of that? Will they get up in this chamber and say that they are proud that in their last 12 months of office they had a negative rate of economic growth? I ask people to compare that with the results of the Labor Government-on a June to June basis we have had a rate of economic growth of 10 per cent. No one opposite can deny that that is the highest rate of economic growth in Western countries as expressed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Let us look at just a minor issue-the issue of bankruptcies. The number has declined by 5 per cent since we came to power. Under the Fraser Government from 1980 to 1983 bankruptcies rose by 170 per cent. How many families suffered from the Liberal policy that drove that many businesses into bankruptcy? One of the other points that the Liberals sometimes make is that the recovery is only a government inspired one. I ask them how they explain the figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which indicate that business investment for the June quarter ending 1983-84 rose by 2.9 per cent in real terms. I wonder what the Jeremiahs opposite will make of those figures. Opposition senators have started talking about the issue of tax. We as a government were able to promise tax cuts and introduce them. That is the big difference between Labor and Liberal. We both promise tax cuts; we deliver but the Opposition reneges. The history of Liberal governments is one of promises. They delight the masses with their promises and delight their backers with the fact that they never carry them out. The rubbery Budget of 1977 was the clearest indication that the Liberal Party is concerned only with winning and exercising power at any cost. It promised tax cuts in 1977 and within five months it reneged on them. No one opposite denies that; it reneged on them. What is the record of those opposite when they were in government? One business alone flourished for those seven years-tax evasion and tax avoidance. It became the biggest growth industry in this country and those opposite did nothing about it until the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union came out in 1982. Then, that Government, scared of what would happen to it, introduced retrospective legislation to save its own hide. It has never supported it since. It supported it only because it thought it might be able to pull an early election in December 1982 and pull off an election victory. If it is argued here that bottom of the harbour schemes are pro-family, we are at a ridiculous point. I move on to another area that is very important for families, that is, the level of industrial disputation. No one can deny that under this Government industrial disputation is at its lowest in 15 years, since 1969. That is a direct result of Labor's relationship with the union movement and its development of the accord. Senator Peter Baume —Tell us about the BLF too. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Baume interjects about the Builders Labourers Federation. He should know that in the last few weeks we have gradually been reining in the BLF, something his Government could never do. The BLF, with a Labor Government, argued that the lights would never go up. The lights are there . The BLF argued that it would never sign an agreement, but it has signed an agreement. A Liberal Government can never deal with unions or demarcation disputes because it simply does not understand them. It is used to using unions as scapegoats for its own incapacity and pathetic management of the economy. It has to find scapegoats and therefore it allocates the unions to play that role. One thing that is clear from this chamber is that the Liberals are jealous of the accord and like petty little brats they are saying that they will destroy the accord just for the thrill of the kill. That is all they are after. They are not concerned about the future of the economy. In the time remaining to me to speak, I wish to say that it has been alleged by speakers from the other side that the Labor Party is not concerned about families. The Labor Party is concerned about families. It has developed policies that have got the best response ever from Australian families. We will see on 1 December exactly what the response is from Australian families. They will not forget the Fraser years from 1975 to 1983. They will not forget that under the Fraser Government-and under the son of the Fraser Government; the embryonic government now in opposition, which is linearly descended from the Fraser years- unemployment went through the roof. It cost 187,000 jobs in its last year in office. Interest rates went through the roof. We had double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment. The only similar thing at the moment is that Andrew Peacock is still in the double digit area on a 19 per cent popularity rating. That is the prospect the Opposition faces. Australian families have made their judgment. I say to anyone who may be listening that if they have any concern for the family they will vote Labor on 1 December. I am quite confident that the great voters of Barton will vote for Gary Punch, that the great voters of Casey will return Pete Steedman, and that the voters in Forrest will return Peter Holland. These are candidates of quality. I am equally sure that in the Northern Territory my friend John Reeves will be returned, and that we will be returned with a record majority. We have the score on the board. Those opposite are absolutely insane with jealousy because of the success of this Government. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator ROBERT RAY —Listen to the cynical laughs of those opposite! What that really reflects is fear-fear of the crushing electoral defeat that will come as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow. I know that my senatorial colleague from Victoria, Senator Lewis, wants to try to retrieve the situation. I will cede the floor to him and listen to the redneck theories from Warrnambool. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.57) —Believe it or not, the Senate is debating a matter of public importance concerning the failure of the Government to stand up for Australian families. My Victorian Labor colleague Senator Robert Ray has just delivered a speech which astounds me. I have never heard a more running- scared speech. I do not understand it. I know that Senator Robert Ray is a numbers man from the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. I can presume only that the Victorian Labor Party has had a recent poll and that that poll has disclosed something that has caused Senator Ray absolutely to panic. I really cannot imagine any other reason why, suddenly, we would get that sort of speech from Senator Robert Ray. We all know that in the 18 months or so of this Government he has been very moderate and has made sound, sensible contributions to the debate. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle — Bipartisan. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle has reminded me, Senator Robert Ray has on a number of occasions been bipartisan, but today we heard a speech from him which absolutely astounded me. This was a speech in which he said his left wing mate from Victoria, Mr Steedman, would win his seat and someone else-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —He is gone. Senator LEWIS —I can only presume, as Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said, that he is gone. I can only presume that he is in trouble. Senator Ray's speech was most incredible. I cannot imagine why he would deliver such a speech. He ranged far and wide and ended up making this appeal to the people of various electorates to vote for his colleagues. I return to the subject of the matter of public importance, which is the Australian family. That is the matter the Senate is supposed to be debating. It is the important subject. I think the Labor Party has finally realised that 60 per cent of Australians live in a traditional two- parent family situation and that in fact only 7 per cent of Australians live in a single-parent family situation. Under the guidance of its radical feminist colleagues, the Labor Party in government has been ignoring the two-parent family and concentrating on providing benefits for the other family. That must be creating problems out in the electorate as the families of Australia begin to realise that this Government will provide them with nothing and do nothing but harm them when it possibly can. If the families of Australia want some assistance they had better start looking to the Opposition parties and Mr Andrew Peacock on 1 December to see whether they might get a better deal from those parties. I assure honourable senators that they will get a better deal out of those parties because our parties have adopted the family and we intend to have policies concentrating on the family. Let me say how delighted I am that that has happened because for some seven years I have been fighting, along with a number of my colleagues, to persuade my Party to adopt the family as the basis of its policy and as the basis of its support for welfare throughout the nation. Dr Edgar, the Director of the Institute of Family Studies, said: Children are after all, every nation's most precious resource. Money spent on them is just not cost, it is also an investment and a profit. Kerry Lovering, the author of Costs of Children in Australia, said that the most startling conclusion of her survey was that teenagers cost roughly 25 per cent a year more than primary school children. There can be no doubt that this generation of parents faces a burden of maintaining children that previous generations never had. Yet this Government's failure to index child allowances effectively means that there has been a cut of 8 per cent in real terms. Is it any wonder that the parents of this nation are not prepared to put up with this Government and are very cross with this Government? Clearly Senator Robert Ray in Victoria has had a poll which has caused him absolutely to panic. Under this Government there has been a shift of priority from family allowances -the opportunity for the family to care for its own children-to a children's services program funded by the Government, funded by the taxpayers of the country, instead of by parents for the benefit of their children. Of course, we know from where this influence came because it was very heavy when we were in office. I am talking about the bureaucrats in the Office of the Status of Women and in the Office of Child Care, all of whom are so imbued with the feminist ideology that they see the women's work force as the only significant role for women. Let us look at the spouse rebate, which is all that stands between the present high penalty tax on the single income family and what otherwise would be much higher levels of penalty tax. Without the spouse rebate the single-income family would be paying at least $26.50 a week more tax than other families having the same total income. There can be no doubt that if the spouse rebate were reduced or withdrawn unemployment would rise as many thousands of married women would be forced to compete in the work force. I have no doubt they would compete successfully in the paid employment market, particularly against the less experienced school leavers. Despite the well known and obvious fact the 1983 Federal Budget allowed no increase to the spouse rebate, which stood then at $1, 030. This current Budget again has made no increase to the spouse rebate. The family with dependent children is much worse off under this Government than it was under the Fraser Government. I give an example of the income tax problems of a typical family. For example, if we take a family with total average earnings of $20,700, the taxpayer would receive a nominal tax cut under this Government of $263 for the year 1984-85. However, he would have to pay an extra $500 tax at the punitive rate of 46c in the dollar on the extra $1,087 he would need to earn in that year just to maintain the family's real income level with a budgeted inflation of 5 1/4 per cent-as low as that. In other words, such a family would be paying a net extra $237 a year in tax-a cost of about $4.56 a week. Of course if he is to give his family any sort of proper health care other than this Medicare nonsense currently provided, if he is to give them the opportunity of going into hospital for proper medical treatment when the time comes, he will be forced to pay an additional $350 for hospital benefits insurance in order to cover his family for such services. In other words, under this Government the family, as a result of changes to the spouse rebate, with the introduction of Medicare and with the loss of the rebate for children, is much worse off. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, who is now in the chamber, earlier plaintively cried: 'What have we done wrong in government? We all came from families and understand the problems of families so what have we done wrong?' Let me tell him of a few things that the Government has done wrong. The Government has failed to lift the tax threshold to $5,000 as it promised. It has failed to index child allowances; in fact, those allowances have been cut in real terms by 8 per cent. It has failed to index the spouse rebate, so in real terms it too has been cut by 8 per cent. Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —That is why Steedman is in trouble. Senator LEWIS —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle reminds me, that is why that fellow Steedman is in trouble. That is why Senator Robert Ray is panicking. The Government has failed to extend the family income supplement to needy people, it has abolished the health insurance rebate, it has abolished the home loan rebate , it has legalised the importation of hard core pornography, it has introduced Medicare and refused gap insurance, it has failed to honour school funding commitments, it has failed to honour promises of assistance to needy non- government schools, it has failed to meet its commitment under the tertiary education assistance scheme and to children at school, and it has failed to provide income support for youth. In a few short words, that is a simple list of the things the Government has done wrong, and that is the answer to Senator Grimes's plaintive cry of: 'What have we done wrong?'. It is clear, Mr President, that this Government has suddenly panicked. The polls must be showing something. We do not have the polls; we are only allowed to read the one in the Bulletin. I would be delighted if Senator Robert Ray would let me have a copy of the secret poll that the Australian Labor Party must have received and which has created such a problem that he came in here today and did not make a speech in any way relating to the subject under debate but made an outright political plea to the people of Australia who might be listening to vote for certain candidates who clearly must be in trouble. I did not get all their names but after this debate is printed I intend to go through Hansard and write to my colleagues opposing those people to congratulate them on their probable victory in the forthcoming election. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time for the debate having expired, pursuant to order the Clerk will call on the appropriation Bills. Debate resumed. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate concerning limitation of debate and the order of the Senate agreed to this day, I now put the question that the words proposed to be added by Senator Peter Rae's amendment be added. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J.Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J.Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J.Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M.Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N.Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J.Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G.Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M.Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F.Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M.Giles, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Archer, B. R. Bolkus, N.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Foreman, D. J.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Haines, J.Hamer, D. J. McIntosh, G. D.Kilgariff, B. F. Macklin, M. J.Lewis, A. W. R. Sibraa, K. W.Martin, K. J. Tate, M. C.Teague, B. C. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —Order! I now put the question that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Senator Harradine-I take a point of order, Mr President. At 12.49 p.m. today when this matter was being considered a motion was moved by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) to the effect that the motion which was then before the Chair, namely, for the second reading of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1), be adjourned until after the matter of public importance. It was indicated at that time by Senator Grimes that this was conditional on the guillotine applying. At 12.49 p.m. I rose and said that I opposed the motion and indicated that I did not know precisely what 'conditions which applied to the guillotine apply at that time' meant. I said, 'I presume that means there is to be no debate on the amendment'-that is to say, Senator Peter Rae's amendment. I was concerned that there would be no debate as I wished to say something on the matter-there were some aspects I agreed with and some I did not see my way clear to support. I then asked, 'Could I just have that made clear?' You, Mr President , in response said: 'That is my ruling already, Senator Harradine'. I then said: 'I will deal with that at that time'. We are now in the situation that the time for the guillotine-namely, 12.30 p.m. -has passed. The conditions which were applied, so far as I was concerned-and I may be the only one in this chamber who thought that-applied to the amendment moved by Senator Peter Rae. I have a large number of matters I wish to raise in the Committee stage on Appropriation Bill (No. 1). One matter relates to a fundamental issue involved in the consideration by the Senate Estimates committees on appropriations in government departments and statutory authorities -namely, appropriation to the Department of Communications and, through it, to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I remind you, Mr President, and the Senate that last night when I was talking about that very matter Senator Button said, and is recorded in Hansard as saying , that we would have half an hour of debate on the Committee stage. It was to that I was referring today when before lunch, at 12.49 p.m., I sought to raise this matter with you. I believe this is a very serious matter indeed. I was under the impression that the condition attached to Senator Grimes's motion applied only to Senator Peter Rae's amendment. That was confirmed in my mind by your answer, Mr President, to the effect, 'That is my ruling already, Senator Harradine'. You may have had something in your mind, Mr President, that was not in mine. That is conceivable because of your breadth of experience in the Chair and your detailed knowledge of Standing Orders, but I again refer to Senator Button's undertaking given by interjection. Senator Button-Rubbish. Senator Harradine-I ask Senator Button to look at Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Harradine to continue his point of order. Senator Harradine-Mr President, if you look at yesterday's Hansard in which Senator Button is recorded as having said at approximately 12 minutes past 6- Senator Gietzelt-But that was the division on the second reading; it is finished. Senator Harradine-Is the honourable senator saying that we should not have a Committee stage? Mr President, I raise this point of order in that atmosphere, in the hope that you can shed some light on the matter and inform me as to whether I was under a misapprehension at that time. Senator Grimes-Mr President, on the point of order: The situation is that yesterday afternoon the Senate passed a motion which provided that all stages of the debate on the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) would be completed by 12.30 p.m. today and, quite rightly, you called the vote on those Bills at 12.30 p.m. It was as a result of points of order taken by Senator Harradine that the time was extended. It was as a result of a request by Senator Chaney that we arranged for a non-contentious debate to take place from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. that this matter has been delayed until now. In the debate last night when the exchange between Senator Harradine and Senator Button took place, a calculation of the number of speakers in the second reading debate meant that there would be a short period for the Committee stage. Senator Button said, I think flippantly, when Senator Harradine asked that that Committee stage occur: 'We can limit that to half an hour if you want it'. But today people were added to the speakers list and as a result we had not reached the Committee stage by 12.30 p.m. The motion passed by the Senate last night was that these Bills would go through all their stages by 12.30 p.m. It was as a result of a request from Senator Peter Rae, to which we did not have to agree, that he be able to move his amendment-I said 'Sure, you can move your amendment provided there is no debate on it' and Senator Rae and others agreed to that-that we are at the stage we are now. We could have refused. Senator Harradine-Senator Button put himself on the list last night. Senator Grimes-There were people from both sides on the list last night. My name came off the list last night. The present situation arises because that is what happened. The motion was passed by the Senate. Senator Rae's amendment, had we got stroppy about it, would not have even been put. Your ruling is quite correct, Mr President, and I believe that you should adhere to it. Senator Chaney-Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The Opposition has great sympathy for the concern which underlies the points which have been made by Senator Harradine. He is anxious to put certain points during the Committee stage of the debate on the Appropriation Bills. The Opposition accepts that the Government, combined with the Australian Democrats, has put through the Senate a motion providing that the Bills are to be guillotined; in other words that debate is to end at 12.30 p.m. today. That happened notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats policy is that the support of two- thirds of the chamber would be required to pass a motion that a Bill is urgent and that a debate be limited in time or guillotined. Although that is their policy they seem to accept a narrow majority in this case as being appropriate. That is a strange matter. Senator Button-As you did too. Senator Chaney-It was never our policy to require a two-thirds majority. The fact of the matter is that the Government postponed the vote at just beyond 12. 45 p.m. at my request, for reasons which I think were proper. I acknowledge that it did that and I do not believe, therefore, that there is substance in the point of order. I have every sympathy with Senator Harradine as to why he wishes to get the debate into the Committee stage, but the Opposition supports the view that there is no valid point of order. The Government, with the Australian Democrats, has ensured that debate on these Bills is truncated. We do not, therefore, support the submission which has been put forward. The PRESIDENT —Order! Yesterday the Senate passed a motion that all stages of the Appropriation Bills be dealt with by 12.30 p.m. today. At 12.30 p.m. debate on the Appropriation bills was exhausted and the question was about to be put. Points of order were taken. Without reciting the whole chronology, by decision of the Senate the time for consideration of the Bills was extended until after the matter of public importance was disposed of. At the conclusion of discussion on the matter of public importance I was obliged by the decision of the Senate this morning to request the Clerk to call on the Appropriation Bills for determination by the Senate. That course of action has been taken and I therefore rule that there is no point of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.28) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent my moving a motion, arising out of matters contained in the Report of Estimates Committee A, dated October 1984, and in the Hansard record of that Committee's proceedings, relating to misleading information provided by the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Geoffrey Whitehead, as follows: That the Senate- (a) take note of the Report of Estimates Committee A, tabled on 9 October 1984, which indicates that information which Mr Geoffrey Whitehead, Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and senior officers of the Corporation, undertook to provide to the Committee at hearings in both May and September 1984, when finally received, was 'less than adequate'; (b) takes note of the failure of Mr Whitehead to provide to the Senate, in accordance with his undertaking, the guidelines to be used by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in implementing its decision to extend entitlements, including relocation expenses, and privileges appropriate to spouses and families of staff members to homosexual partners; (c) takes note of the failure of Mr Whitehead to discharge his undertaking to provide the legal basis for his affirmation before the Committee that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's decision on homosexual partners of employees was based on an assumption of legal responsibility; and (d) condemns Mr Whitehead, as Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for the inadequate and misleading information provided to that Committee, and the Senate, in derogation of his responsibility as the executive officer of a statutory corporation, funded by the Parliament. I believe we have reached a stage at which this Parliament is being treated with contempt by the ABC. I quote from the report of Estimates Committee A which was tabled-- Senator Peter Rae —The unanimous report. Senator HARRADINE —I quote from the unanimous report of Estimates Committee A which was tabled in this Parliament on, I think, 9 October: The Committee's experience in examining the 1984-85 Estimates of the Corporation in September lead it to question whether the Corporation has undergone any change of attitude. Information which the Managing Director, Mr Whitehead, and senior officers undertook to provide as a result of questioning at the 30 May hearing was not sent to the Committee until 9 July, and what was received was, in the Committee's view, less than adequate. Additional information sought at the September hearing, while this time received promptly, was again considered by the Committee to be less than adequate. At the hearing itself, the Committee considered as less than satisfactory a number of the answers given by Mr Whitehead . . . Unless there is an improvement there will come a time when this Committee will have to recommend to the Senate that it do more than merely draw the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to its obligations to the Parliament. I am forced to move for the suspension of Standing Orders now because no opportunity was provided to the Senate to debate the report of Estimates Committee A when it was tabled on 9 October 1984. At that time when I rose to speak I was told by members of the Government that the appropriate time for me to raise this question was during the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). We can now see exactly what has happened. We have seen the guillotine come down and, despite the guarantee given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) last night that there would be at least a half-hour Committee stage debate, we have seen the gag come down and we have had our hands tied so that we had no opportunity to address ourselves to a matter as important as this and, I remind the Senate, as vital as this. The matter is vital because it goes to the heart of our responsibilities to and the rights of the people of Australia, the taxpayers of Australia, who are funding the ABC to the tune of $ 350m a year. What I have stated in my proposed motion is clearly of vital concern and must be dealt with now. It may be thought by honourable senators to be couched in rather strong terms. It is deliberately so couched because there is no other way in which to describe the attitude adopted by Mr Whitehead before the Committee, his failure to provide key information and his supply of misleading information. I direct your attention, Mr President, and that of members of the Senate-- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I take a point of order. Senator Harradine, in developing his argument in favour of the suspension of Standing Orders, must of course go part way to addressing the substance of the matter to prove the importance of suspending Standing Orders. But it seems to me that he is going a second time round and canvassing those issues now rather than when speaking to the motion he will move should this motion be carried. I think that is entirely out of order. The PRESIDENT —I am listening to Senator Harradine very carefully. I take note of the point that Senator Robert Ray has raised and I remind Senator Harradine that he is at this stage debating his right to seek the suspension of Standing Orders, not the gravamen of the motion that he seeks to move ultimately. I ask him to restrict his remarks to the proposed suspension of Standing Orders. Senator HARRADINE —I accept that, Mr President. It is difficult, as Senator Robert Ray pointed out, to make a case for the suspension of Standing Orders without referring at least in some way to the motion for which a suspension is required. I will desist from arguing the merits of the motion itself. I believe, in short, that the suspension is required because there has been misleading information. That is accepted, I believe, by all concerned. It is accepted, after I have examined it, particularly in the sense that it relates to the failure of Mr Whitehead to provide the legal basis of his affirmation that there was some legal obligation on the part of the ABC to take the decision that it has and his failure-I will not go any further than this-to provide the guidelines which were requested, as reported on page 167 of Hansard, for the implementation of this decision. The report of the Committee is a serious report. It indicates that the ABC has failed in its obligations to Parliament. I do not mind whether Mr Whitehead's personal attitude to the Committee was as he expressed it. He said to the Committee: I have been before other hearings and I find this a rather interesting chapter for my future memoirs. I do not mind whether he takes that attitude but we in this Senate have a responsibility to protect taxpayers' funds. We have the responsibility to exercise an audit and control function over the Executive and over statutory authorities. If this motion is not able to be put now we are being denied that right and that responsibility which is truly ours as a House of review. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.37) —The Opposition will support the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders which has been moved by Senator Harradine. Like the rest of the Senate we did not have prior notice of the course which he proposes and we have not, therefore, had a chance to look in close detail at the sub-clauses of the detailed motion he wishes to move. But that does not affect our judgment at this stage that the matter which Senator Harradine seeks to have the opportunity to debate is a matter which properly should be debated in this place. One does not have to rely on Senator Harradine's viewpoint for that. A bipartisan viewpoint has been expressed in the report of Estimates Committee A to which Senator Harradine has already referred which points out the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence which was given to the Senate when it was seeking to exercise its appropriate role to supervise this important area of public expenditure. In the words of the report the information received was ' again considered by the Committee to be less than adequate'. We have squarely a situation in which on the report of Senate Estimates Committee A something warrants the attention of the Senate sitting as a whole. I suppose the success or failure of this motion will again be determined by whether the Australian Democrats support it. I merely refer to some of the arguments which I believe should sit with the Australian Democrats in determining their attitude. The Australian Democrats have indicated in their platform document a belief that the Parliament should have an adequate opportunity to consider legislative matters. For example, they are committed to the idea that the support of two-thirds of the chamber will be required for a motion that a Bill is urgent and a debate be limited in time or guillotined. I think the principle contained in that Democrat statement is very clear. The Democrats have chosen to walk away from it with respect to their support of the guillotine but I believe that they should consider the report of Estimates Committee A and also consider joining with the Opposition in the support we are giving to Senator Harradine's motion. The Democrats' platform also provides a series of things which I believe are very attractive if one believes that the chambers of the Parliament should exercise their function. For example, they require a two-thirds vote to dispense with the legislative time-table and less than a 50 per cent vote to extend the legislative time-table-a clear statement that the Australian Democrats believe in proper parliamentary scrutiny. This is an occasion when they are being asked to give that opportunity to the Senate to scrutinise an area of government expenditure of some $300m plus which has not been satisfactorily dealt with before the Committee. Indeed, when a Bill is before Parliament the Australian Democrats commit themselves to having it scrutinised clause by clause, including any delegations of power by the relevant standing committee. Senator Jack Evans —Does this have any relevance to this motion? Senator CHANEY —It is of considerable relevance. The fact of the matter is that the Democrats claim to be committed to proper parliamentary scrutiny. What is being sought is an opportunity to scrutinise a matter in the Appropriation Bills which Estimates Committee A has pointed out has been questioned-- Senator Jack Evans —Well, debate the issue and we will listen to it. Senator CHANEY —The issue cannot be debated under Standing Orders unless this motion is passed. Mr President, Senator Jack Evans invites me to debate the issue. That would clearly be a breach of the Standing Orders and you would pull me up. The issue, of course, is why we should suspend the Standing Orders. The point I wish to make is the point that I made earlier; that is, that there is clearly, on the face of the report of Estimates Committee A, a matter which has been dealt with unsatisfactorily by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is a matter in which there has certainly been a desire-- Senator Robert Ray —Read the whole report. Senator CHANEY —I have read the whole report. Mr President, Senator Robert Ray is always helpful in these debates. He is now claiming that the Estimates Committee, of which he was part, does not recommend action now. It may be satisfactory to the Labor members of this place to authorise $324m of expenditure without regard to the unsatisfactory nature of the responses given by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but the Opposition does not regard that as a satisfactory acquitting of its parliamentary responsibilities. The fact that Senator Robert Ray does regard it as satisfactory is a matter for him and his conscience. In any event, Mr President, for the reasons which I say are adequately explained in the report of the Committee, we will be supporting the motion which will simply give us an opportunity to examine properly the matters which are raised by this Estimates Committee report. I am simply putting the additional argument that on the principles which have been publicly espoused by the Australian Democrats, namely, that they do believe in adequate parliamentary scrutiny, they, too, should be supporting Senator Harradine in this matter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(5.43) —The Government will not be supporting Senator Harradine's move to suspend the Standing Orders. Senator Harradine's comments about what took place yesterday evening became a little more extravagant as he went on. He was claiming in the latter stage of his remarks that I gave him a guarantee that the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) would be given time today. I gave no such guarantee. What I said was-it was by way of comment across the chamber-that according to the speakers list and the program which the Government had time- tabled, there would be time for consideration of the Committee stage of this Bill. Senator Crichton-Browne —I thought you said you would give him half an hour. Senator BUTTON —No, I did not say that. I said that that time ought to be available. That was what I was saying. That has now been turned into a sort of guarantee. I did not give Senator Harradine a guarantee. If he wants a guarantee from me, he should ask me for one and I will give it to him, and I will always honour it. That did not take place. It is a nice point that we reach this stage of having passed the Appropriation Bills and in all the appropriations one issue has been raised by Senator Harradine which the Opposition says is a matter of such urgency and importance- there is no other issue in the appropriations-that we should suspend the Standing Orders in order to deal with this matter. I understand Senator Harradine's desire to make a point about this particular matter. I was at the Estimates Committee A hearing and I heard both Senator Harradine and Senator Peter Rae make their points. As I understand the report, it is not suggested that this matter should be dealt with at this time by the Committee. I think it is true to say in respect of Senator Peter Rae's point that the question of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's accountability to the Committee has been an ongoing saga. Senator Harradine has made this point. The notice of motion is before us. He will be able to brandish it all over Tasmania in the course of the next election campaign, if that is what he wants to do. Senator Harradine —That is not the point. Senator BUTTON —Is it not? If Senator Harradine wants to do that, that is what he will be able to do. The Opposition has said: 'This is a matter we ought to dicuss. This is the issue of the day arising from the Appropriation Bills'. The Government cannot agree to that course. The Government will not agree to a suspension of Standing Orders on this matter. I congratulate Senator Harradine on advancing his point. It is certainly before us and he spoke to some of the merits of it in the course of seeking the suspension of Standing Orders. I, on behalf of the Government, just indicate that we cannot accept the motion that has been moved. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.47) -The Australian Democrats will not be supporting the proposed suspension of Standing Orders for the reason suggested by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). There are probably 40 or 50 honourable senators in this chamber who have material in their files that they would like to bring up, if time were available-another three or four weeks or a month-in the consideration of the Appropriation Bills. It is not really rational that one matter should be brought forward. However, we have a sympathy with Senator Harradine in this matter. I think it would be reasonable and appropriate if Senator Harradine were to withdraw his motion and seek leave of the Senate to refer this matter back to Estimates Committee A. Mr President, I suggest, with all respect to you, that that is a possible way to overcome this matter. I do not think we really welcome the continuous harping by Senator Chaney on the Democrats' iniquities when the fact of the matter is that for years in this place members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have had freedom of debate on almost every issue that has come forward because the Democrats have held their hands over them and protected them. For months and years they have not had any gag or guillotine moved on them and they have been able to debate things freely. Let us get that point absolutely clear. I am merely responding to the remarks made by Senator Chaney. I would like him to examine his conscience in this matter and understand that, in the future, the Opposition will be requiring that same protection it has had in the past from the Australian Democrats, and they will get it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.48) — in reply-Very briefly, Senator Button raised three matters. The first was that if I want an undertaking he will give it and he will abide by it. The second point was that I chose to raise only one issue out of all the items in the appropriation legislation. The implication was that I raised the issue because I desired in some way to brandish that fact around the electorate. Let me deal with the last point first. I believe that that is an inappropriate reflection on me because, from the very start, I have conducted correspondence with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about this . I have proceeded through the appropriate authoritative channels. I have not been able to get anywhere through the appropriate channels, including the questioning of officers at Estimates Committee A. I have a right, as a member of this Parliament, to attempt to obtain the truth from those in authority for whom we appropriate millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds-in the case of the ABC, $ 330m or whatever. The next matter that he raised was the one I had settled on. When I moved for the suspension of Standing Orders I said that I had a large number of issues to raise but that this matter was one which went to the very heart of the audit and control functions of the Estimates committees, and through them the Parliament. I am not a member of Estimates Committee A; I was there by invitation and I asked a few questions. Senator Peter Baume —As is your right. Senator HARRADINE —As is my right. It was the Estimates Committee which drew the attention of the Senate, through its report, to the failure of Mr Whitehead to discharge his obligations as a statutory officer. Senator Button said that if I wanted an undertaking I should ask him for it and he would give it to me. I read from page 2235 of yesterday's Hansard. I said: All I want the Government to do-I ask this of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) through you, Mr President-is to think about the time allowed to debate the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) to see whether it can extend the time allowed to debate the Appropriation Bills so that at least we will get some Committee stage consideration of those Bills. Senator Button's response was: We can limit that to half an hour if you want. A request was made and the undertaking was given: 'We can limit that to half an hour if you want'. I want it all right, and I said as much this morning and also this afternoon. A request was made, an undertaking was given and an excuse has now been made that last night's speakers list was added to. That is nonsense. There were nine speakers left on the list last night. Senator Button added himself to this list. He said that that was to replace Senator Grimes, but Senator Grimes was at the bottom of the list. Senator Gietzelt was not on the list but he was added in place of Senator Grimes. So we have the excuse that there was not time to debate this matter in the Committee stages. Senator Mason' s main point was that there were many other matters that ought to have been raised arising from the Appropriation Bills-- Senator Mason —I said there could have been matters raised, not ought to have been raised. Do not misquote me. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Mason corrects me, and I stand corrected. Senator Mason said that there were many other matters that could have been raised in the Committee stages of the Appropriation Bills. They were not raised. Of course they were not raised, because there were no Committee stages of any Bills. The reason there were no Committee stages was that the-- Senator Jack Evans —Because we filibustered the second reading. Senator HARRADINE —The reason there were no Committee stages was that the Government, with the support of the Australian Democrats, applied the gag and thus gagged one of the most important functions of the Parliament, its audit and control function. Question put: That the motion (Senator Harradine's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Archer, B. R. Jessop, D. S. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Gietzelt, A. T. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Martin, K. J. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Sibraa, K. W. Teague, B. C. McIntosh, G. D. Kilgariff, B. F. Foreman, D. J. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. Hamer, D. J. Evans, GarethTownley, M. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —During the debate on the suspension of Standing Orders, Senator Jack Evans made a number of interjections suggesting that the Opposition had filibustered on the Appropriation Bills. I wish to make a couple of points in explanation. First of all, there was no filibuster-- Senator Chipp —I take a point of order, Mr President. Will you rule whether this is truly a personal explanation? The PRESIDENT —I am prepared to hear Senator Chaney, but I point out that he cannot make use of a personal explanation to emphasise points of party policy. A personal explanation must be a personal explanation. Senator CHANEY —I will be quite brief. I simply wish to make the point that, first, there was no filibuster and, secondly, the Australian Democrats has three available speakers, all of whom spoke on the Appropriation Bills. Senator Macklin was away and Senator Chipp is having problems with his voice. The others spoke-- Senator Mason —On a point of order, Mr President; I cannot see that Senator Chipp's voice or Senator Macklin's movements have anything to do with a personal explanation. I suggest that you call Senator Chaney to make his personal explanation in a reasonable way. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Opposition sought leave to make a personal explanation. The Deputy President has already given an indication on behalf of the Chair as to what a personal explanation involves. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine the leave that has been given to him to a personal explanation. Senator CHANEY —The term 'filibuster' means the use of a parliamentary tactic to draw out debate for the purpose of using and wasting time. My personal explanation is simple. All the available Democrats chose to speak in the debate on the Appropriation Bill yet they accuse the Opposition senators-many of whom did not speak on this Bill-of engaging in filibuster. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is clearly out of order. Senator CHANEY —I do not agree with that, Mr President. Senator Peter Rae —On a point of order, Mr President; standing order No. 408 says that by the indulgence of the Senate a senator may explain matters of a personal nature although there is no question before the Senate, but that such matters may not be debated. I draw attention to what could happen. I recall an occasion when, one after another, members of the then Opposition, now the Government, sought leave to make personal explanations because a collective accusation had been made against them. Exactly the same situation could apply here. If Senator Chaney cannot speak briefly on behalf of the whole of the Opposition, then we are left in a situation where each one of the Opposition senators has to seek leave to make an explanation on his or her own behalf. That would be absurd. The PRESIDENT —Order! For a start, Senator Chaney has completed his personal explanation. Secondly, I remind the Senate of the ruling given by my colleague the Deputy President, who recently said: Whether a Senator is making a personal explanation under standing order 408 or correcting a misunderstanding under standing order 410, the Senator must limit himself to the precise nature of the explanation, should not debate the issue or criticise any other Senator. Motion (by Senator Harradine)-by leave-agreed to: That the points referred to in the proposed motion of Senator Harradine concerning the Australian Broadcasting Corporation be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for consideration and report to the Senate. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Social Security Act 1947 to provide that the Assets Test hardship appeal provisions to apply where the economic viability of a farm or small business would be adversely affected. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.05) —I move: That Orders of the Day relating to Committee reports Nos 1, 5 and 6 be postponed until the next day of sitting. This motion enables the Senate to consider Order of the Day No. 3, the report of the Senate Privileges Committee, as agreed to by the Whips this morning. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Childs: That the report be adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.06) —At the adjournment of this debate earlier today, I was making the point that a number of questions need to be dealt with in respect of the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the amendments to the Trade Practices Act. We are having a cognate debate on these two Bills. Unfortunately, during the debate a number of statements have been made with which time does not permit me to deal in full. Now that we are in the dying stages of this Parliament, it is unfortunate that we have very little time to consider these important measures. I referred earlier to the fact that when considering these measures we should do so against a framework of certain principles which are important for orderly industrial progress. First, industrial relations are best served by the encouragement of effective, responsible trade unions working in the best interests of their members and by the encouragement of members to participate fully in union affairs. Secondly, the power of trade unions to contribute effectively and responsibly to orderly industrial progress depends on the co- ordinated and disciplined action of their members. Thirdly, the rules of individual trade unions registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have contained self-disciplinary provisions. Likewise, a central trade union organisation such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and State labour councils have had rules for the conduct and control of industrial disputes with their own internal disciplinary procedures. Those procedures, which are still in existence, are designed and are necessary to achieve the objects of the unions in a united and co-ordinated manner with the least possible disruption. Having stated those principles, let us consider these measures against the framework of those principles. These measures seek to implement a desire of the ACTU to have the provisions of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act in particular removed so far as disputes relating to trade unions are concerned. When section 45D was incorporated into the Act-in 1976, I think-the question was raised as to whether it was appropriate for industrial disputes to be dealt with under the provisions of the Trade Practices Act or whether industrial disputes were not more appropriate to be dealt with through the conciliation and arbitration processes of the Commonwealth or of the States. Mr Deputy President, you and honourable senators will realise that specific provisions in the Constitution go to this question; that is, the question of industrial disputes- the machinery to be established for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the boundaries of any one State. I was one of those who raised that issue. I was concerned about whether a body such as that established under the Trade Practices Act-and the extension of that , the civil courts-were the appropriate authorities to deal with disputes, particularly industrial disputes. Unfortunately, I and the then Opposition were overruled. I point out to the present Opposition, the Liberal Party, that if it is going down the track of invoking constitutional powers which were not designed to deal with industrial disputes, it is getting into a morass indeed. After all, one of our objections to the results of the Tasmanian dam case was the usurpation of the foreign affairs power to override decisions that are appropriately taken by the States. One of the generally unforseen dangers-I foresaw it but it was generally unforseen-of that dam decision is that Mr Justice Murphy, both in that decision and outside in public, has advocated the use of the corporations power to deal with industrial matters in Australia. I regard that as an aberration. It is contrary to the intentions of the founding fathers, who were very wise people in this respect. Time does not permit me to expand on that thesis and to provide the Senate with empirical evidence which shows that the Trade Practices Act is an inappropriate Act to deal with industrial matters. I have listened to much of the debate. I believe the Opposition has a genuine concern-it is a logically arguable concern-that there are certain disputes which the current provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act cannot deal with adequately, because they do not touch on industrial matters. Those are, of course, the boycotts dealing with political or foreign affairs issues; for example, shipping bans because somebody does not like Chile, Indonesia or France . Those provisions are clearly in the realm of foreign affairs, properly the province of governments and parliaments. Certainly, there is not the right for trade unions to exercise their industrial power to achieve or to impose upon the rest of the community their political policies. I listened to what Senator Jack Evans said. He adverted to the problem of political and economic disputes; in other words, disputes of a non-industrial character. Let me say very clearly that I believe that for a trade union to continue to use the strike weapon as a political battering ram constitutes an attack on the fundamental basis of the trade union movement. If one continues to use the strike weapon as a political battering ram-this is important in certain industrial situations-it will disintegrate. That would be a sad day for the trade union movement and for the workers. So, to cut a long story short as I must fit my speech into 15 minutes, I indicate to the Senate that I will be moving during the Committee stage the amendments that have been distributed. Those amendments, if passed, will ensure that industrial disputes are dealt with by the processes of conciliation and arbitration and that disputes of a non-industrial character, that is, disputes that do not arise from an industrial matter, can be dealt with in the manner they are able to be dealt with now. That is second best. I would like to see a situation-maybe we are moving towards it-whereby people in the industrial relations arena take responsibility for their actions and know that if they do not discharge those responsibilities there is an industrial sanction, either because of the authority of the combined trade union movement or, if that is not forthcoming, through legislation. You know, Mr Deputy President, because you were a member of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation , that at present in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act there are vast powers available to employers and others affected by industrial disputes. It has been said that secondary boycotts are dreadful because they affect innocent parties. Senator Walters —Aren't they? Senator HARRADINE —Can Senator Walters tell me what industrial disputes do not affect innocent parties? Senator Walters —Not as many as secondary boycotts. Senator HARRADINE —Not at all. All I ask her to do is to read what I have said about this elsewhere. Very briefly, what I have said is that if honourable senators vote for this proposition, it will enable disputes of an industrial character to come out of the trade practices area and thus put employers on an equal footing and not discriminate between employers. I propose to move my amendments at the Committee stage. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.20) —This evening we are debating the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984. As I understand Senator Harradine, he believes that that is not an appropriate place for any industrial relations material. That material is included in the Trade Practices Act because businesses also have to abide by the provisions of the Act. They also are not permitted to indulge in boycotts. Let us look at exactly what a secondary boycott is. It is primarily section 45D of the Trade Practices Act that we object to being dismantled by this Government. The secondary boycott provision was brought in by the Fraser Government and has been applauded by employers throughout Australia as the most effective piece of legislation dealing with industrial disputes that Australia has seen-certainly the most effective legislation that we passed while we were in government. Let us look at the aim of the legislation and at what a secondary boycott is. I can give a very good example from my State of Tasmania. There was a transport workers strike throughout the whole of Australia. The private bus owners of Tasmania canvassed their members who all decided, every single one of them, that they did not want to go on strike. Therefore, the private bus owners said: 'Fine , we will continue working'. The transport union at that time was most upset and threatened the employers, the private bus owners, with a boycott on petrol. It said: 'We will not allow you to get petrol at any petrol station in Tasmania'. That had nothing to do with the transport workers but a totally different union was brought into that dispute. It was because of that threat or that decision by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, that it would take that action and bring into a dispute which had nothing to do with them a completely innocent union with a completely innocent number of employers, that the private bus owners said: 'If you do that we will invoke section 45D. We will invoke that section of the Trade Practices Act which gives us the power to stop you from declaring that secondary boycott'. As a result of that threat, the Transport Workers Union moved off and did not take any such action. Only that threat solved that particular dispute. During the Transport Workers Union strike throughout Australia, the private bus owners in Tasmania were able to work and carry on with their jobs because their union members wanted to do so. That is a very simple example of what a secondary boycott is. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has made a deal with the unions. I will look later at the sorts of unions with which he has made a deal. He said that his Department-a nice independent body is it not; the Minister's Department-had examined 25 boycott disputes involving unions which have occurred since the beginning of 1983. The Minister said that out of those only three had been resolved as a direct result of the section 45D provision. That does not add up. Indeed, the Confederation of Australian Industry, because its members were so concerned that this Government was going to do away with the only effective piece of legislation, as they saw it, to get over this iniquitous secondary boycott threat by unions, did a survey of its members. The Confederation got 20 out of 25 responses. Those responses were unequivocal. They absolutely, overwhelmingly stated that they believed that the secondary boycott legislation was most effective in solving the disputes that they had had. As I said Senator Harradine was speaking on behalf of the responsible trade unions of Australia. He was not talking on behalf of the unions mentioned in the Confederation of Australian Industry survey. Let us look at them. For example, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia is mentioned time and time again. Also mentioned a number of times were the Transport Workers Union of Australia, the Builders Labourers Federation, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, the Seamen's Union of Australia, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia and the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, and so on. The employers of all these unions instigating secondary boycotts were asked what the result of a secondary boycott was on their particular industrial dispute. Without exception all the employers said that it was absolutely devastating to them as businesses. Many times the comment was: 'Stop operations completely'. One comment was to the effect that there was a financial loss in the form of fixed costs of approximately $US7,000 a day with the prospect that a ship would not be able to transport a load of oil from Singapore to Hong Kong, involving a further loss of $US88,000. All the employers said that the disputes disrupted their businesses and on most occasions stopped operations totally. It is indeed an indictment that the CAI had to have a secret response, if you like, in which those surveyed were not named because the employers were intimidated by the union members. They were too frightened of union retaliation to have their names printed. What a shocking indictment of the radical section of the Australian union movement that the CAI survey was not able to name the employers who contributed. We hear so much from the Government about civil liberties. People cannot even speak and gain protection under this Government. Let us look at a few of the other questions in the survey because they are interesting. One question asked: For how long had the boycott action been in place before you filed applications under the Trade Practices Act? The majority of those employers surveyed said that it was quite some time before they took that drastic action. Some of the replies were: 'approximately three weeks'; 'three months off and on'; 'three weeks'; 'at least a month'; 'about one or two weeks'; 'approximately two weeks'; 'four weeks', and so it went on. These were the sorts of delays before action was actually taken. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator WALTERS —Madam Acting Deputy President, prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Senate was debating the Trade Practices Amendment Bill and I was quoting from the survey conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry of its members who had instigated proceedings against unions indulging in secondary boycotts. I was saying that the replies to the survey of CAI members all assured the Confederation that indeed section 45D had helped them tremendously. The survey asked these questions: Did the boycott action cease prior to an injunction actually being issued by the Federal Court? If so, do you think this was attributable to pending ss. 45D or 45E action? If not, how soon after the issuing of the injunction did the boycott cease? In other words, it asked whether there was a need to instigate the 45D secondary boycott section or would just a threat of instigating the section work. Many of them said that just the threat of using that section was enough to make the unions taking the industrial action at the time come back into line and drop the industrial disputation. As I indicated earlier in my speech, this occurred in Tasmania in a matter very important to our State. Other respondents said no, the injunction actually had to be issued before the union would drop the industrial disputation. I also pointed out that the unions we were referring to were not the responsible unions. They were all unions that over the years have caused tremendous problems-the storemen and packers, the transport workers, the builders labourers and so on. I had indicated that Senator Harradine in his speech really referred only to the unions that would not use this method of disputation-the more responsible unions-and that is why I feel that the retention of this legislation to deal with the more radical unions is most essential. I did agree to speak for only 10 minutes. We have been gagged by the Government and by the Australian Democrats on this legislation and so I am unable to proceed any further. An arrangement has been made. The Government has seen fit to gag the Opposition and not permit it to take the full time to debate this important Bill. As a result, I now have to hand over to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) because, as usual, he has demanded twice the time we have had to speak. He has 20 minutes and the rest of us promised to stick to 10 minutes. It is only as a result of the agreement reached that I will sit down. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(8.04) —I would have been quite happy for Senator Walters to continue for a few minutes. In fact, I made that offer but she was not disposed to accept it. The first matter of substance I want to deal with is the suggestion which has come into this debate that this legislation arises from the prices and incomes accord in some peculiar way, it being seen as some kind of spooky document out of which all sorts of things flow. I want to make it quite clear that this is Government legislation. It was unanimously approved of by the Government and it is not a question of the Government not having firm intentions about this legislation, as has been suggested by some speakers, including Senator Jack Evans, the Australian Democrat from Western Australia. I remind the Senate that those of us who were in opposition in the years of the Fraser Government have adopted a consistent position on this legislation. We opposed the inclusion of sections 45D and 45E in the legislation when they were introduced by the Fraser Government. We had subsequent debates about them here. We said they would not work and that they were in the wrong place; the trade practices legislation was not an appropriate vehicle for dealing with matters related to industrial disputes, a point which was made by Senator Harradine in the course of his remarks earlier this evening. I make it quite clear from the beginning that there has been a consistent position by the Government in relation to this legislation. Certainly it is correct to say, as some speakers have said, that the trade unions support the legislation now before the Parliament. The have done so for a long time. This Government and the members of it who formerly were in opposition have done the same thing. I address my attention to the suggestion that there are no valid reasons for this proposed legislation, in particular in the area of restrictions on common law. As I said, the Government believes that these matters-we have said this consistently-should be dealt with by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the first instance, where dispute settling machinery is provided. Senator Watson —A toothless tiger. It has been hopeless since 1969. Senator BUTTON —I do not know what Senator Watson is talking about. I assume he is saying that the Arbitration Commission has been hopeless since 1969. Senator Watson —The conciliation and arbitration provisions are absolutely hopeless and you know it. Senator BUTTON —As I said in the course of debate the other day, the criterion which those in the Opposition always adopt in considering these issues is whether they work in terms of the levels of industrial disputation. Whatever Senator Watson's view is, since this Government came to power the methods of consultation which it has brought into the Australian political and social scene for the first time have worked much better than anything the Opposition ever provided. We say that the dispute settling machinery is provided there. I just make the point that I made in a debate in this place a long time ago: The Trade Practices Commission, when considering section 45D complaints relating to union activities and industrial issues, because of the unnatural sea into which it was swimming in terms of the settlement of disputes procedures, has developed a procedure whereby it consults regularly with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry before proceeding with matters. The Trade Practices Commission also consulted on an informal basis with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the early days of this legislation for the same sorts of reasons. In connection with the question of common law rights, I just want to make it clear that the Government is not removing common law rights of employers, as has been suggested. What is proposed in the legislation is a simple restriction on obtaining injunctions at common law whilst matters are before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its dispute settling role. The Commission has to deal with all aspects of a boycott dispute expeditiously and commence to deal with it within 48 hours of notification. That would be the effect of the legislation if the amendments were carried. That restriction will apply only while the Commission is confident of promptly ending the boycott or settling underlying disputes. The Government's view is that the immediate intervention of legal processes into dispute settling processes tends to disrupt the capacity for settlement procedures. Senator Walters —Why do you not read the survey? Senator BUTTON —I was not going to devote much time to the survey because Senator Walters's explanation of it was sufficient to damn it for all time, but I shall do so later if it is regarded as important. The point is that if formal legal processes are intruded into the settlement of disputes right at the beginning, it leaves limited capacity for the settlement procedures to go forward. I have been told that in 38 out of 64 cases where relevant information is available in relation to cases under the existing provisions, periods of two weeks and more have occurred between the imposition of the boycott and the application for an injunction. Much has been made in the debate of the fact that no provision for arbitration is included in the proposed legislation. That suggestion is based on the view that the basic reason for the emphasis on arbitration is the belief that arbitration produces result in imposing sanctions and bind parties to agreements . Arbitration does not necessarily result in sanctions but voluntary arbitration will be available. Where the boycott is ancillary to an industrial dispute, arbitration will be available in respect of the underlying issues. If the boycott is the result of a political or ideological claim of the type referred to in this debate, arbitration would be of no practical value. If the boycott is not strictly industrial but has some other relationship with employment-not such a close nexus as straight up and down employment-related issues-constitutional problems are likely to arise in defining the range of legitimate exceptions or exemptions. In respect of the common law sanction which I addressed a minute or two ago, I make the point that there is a very grave risk of inconsistency between tribunals in the way in which they deal with these matters. If the common law right is preserved and used in the way in which Opposition senators apparently wants it to be used, there will be different results in different places in dealing with industrial disputes of one kind or another. Senator Watson —How many times has the Government used it? How many damages have been given? The record speaks for itself. Senator BUTTON —Senator Watson is confusing two issues. I am speaking of common law remedies, and damages have been awarded in such instances. That has not happened in proceedings under sections 45D and 45E. I concede that. I am not talking about that. I hope that I shall be allowed to get on with my remarks without any further interjections. I was addressing the common law issue. I shall now touch on the survey conducted by the Confederation of Australian Industry. That survey is not very satisfactory in certain respects. One cannot rely on it as establishing a basis for a conclusive argument against the legislation before the Parliament. The survey was based on a questionnaire distributed amongst employers who have used section 45D and whose assessment of its effectiveness was sought. The departmental studies on this matter relied for the most part on facts on the public record, particularly those of the Federal Court of Australia and the Commission in respect of transcripts and decisions. Senator Walters —They don't deal with the unions. Senator BUTTON —I am trying, Senator Walters, to address the relative credibility of two surveys. Senator Walters's comments about the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in the course of this debate are totally irresponsible and, in terms of their objectivity, should not be made by any honourable senator. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has a long and fine record. Those sorts of remarks should not be made about departments which have served all governments to the best of their ability. I do not say they always served well, because sometimes they have had impossible tasks. I am just making the point that the departmental view is different from a view which might be used as a basis of some conclusions-very dubious ones-in relation to the CAI survey. The CAI survey dealt with only 25 cases in all and has provided information in respect of only 20 since the beginning of 1983. One of the 20 cases relied on in this survey took place in 1982. One of the employers for which answers to questions are given in the survey did not reply at all-that company is in liquidation-and the CAI provided some of the information itself. I do not say that that information was necessarily inaccurate or was provided in any sense in bad faith, but the questionnaire is open to some criticisms on that basis. It is a very small sample of information on which to draw conclusions in favour of retaining the existing legislation and rejecting the legislation before the Senate. If this amending legislation is passed the employer will not be left without remedies in respect of the sort of situations with which the 45D and 45E provisions of the Trade Practices Act have been concerned. As I said before, there is no evidence that sanctions solve disputes. This question has been the subject of debate in the Senate over may years. Senator Watson is now gesticulating madly at me, which is a sign of aberrant behaviour at the best of times, I would have thought. The fact of the matter is that sanctions have always been the subject of debate in terms of one view of industrial relations as against another. The Government's view has been for a long time-as I said, long before we came into government-that the sort of remedies which rely on sanctions have not served this country well. They have not served it well in terms of the test which Liberal-National Party spokesmen would apply. Have they worked in terms of industrial disputation levels in this country? The answer is unequivocally no. I just make the point that all common law remedies, including injunctions and damages, will be available. State legislation dealing with marketing or industry regulation will continue to apply. Most of the small businesses about which we have heard from Senator Jack Evans and others, subject to State legislation as they are, will not be covered by the current provisions of the amending legislation. All other provisions of the Trade Practices Act about which comment has been made in the course of the debate will continue to apply. I reiterate that the Government's view has consistently been that the place for the settlement of industrial disputes is that provided by the Constitution which has a wealth of legislation and experience, namely, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The place for dealing with industrial disputes is not in the hands of the Trade Practices Commission. We have said that on numerous occasions and we will say it again in the course of dealing with this legislation. I dealt earlier with the two main criticisms which have been advanced by Opposition senators in the course of the debate. The first is that somehow there is some agreement with the trade union movement. That is not so. It is a matter which was in the Labor platform well before we came to government . It has been a consistent position. Senator Watson —There is no agreement. What about the BLF? Senator BUTTON —I suppose the honourable senator wants legislation to deal with militant unions and not the others. No doubt the honourable senator and Senator Walters between them will decide which ones ought to be dealt with in this way. That is the only option the honourable senator has. I would not think that too many of the unions on the list that Senator Walters read out would fall into the militant basket, as the honourable senator calls it. But the fact of the matter is that the honourable senator wants it all ways. He wants suitable remedies, as he sees them, to deal with militant unions but not with others. Of course, the honourable senator is coming in here and beating the drum about militant unions in the hope of gaining some sort of perceived advantage from that process. Senator Maguire —There is not much equity. Senator BUTTON —That is not going to work very effectively. There is not much equity, as Senator Maguire interjects, in that sort of process. The other leg of the argument which has been advanced by Opposition senators is that section 45D and section 45E are effective and the Government proposals would leave employers defenceless against secondary boycotts. I just repeat that that is not the view of the Government. I concede that the thing which has prevailed in the context of sections 45D and 45E is not the sanction but the conciliation process which has been engendered. That is the thing which has worked. Opposition senators come in here and claim that sections 45D and 45E have worked. I remind Senator Watson that they have worked not because of sanctions but because of the conciliation mechanisms which have applied in the context of dealing with disputes. I just make the point that the legislation is specifically framed to take account of persons affected by a secondary boycott resorting to common law if the Commission is unable to end a boycott or settle a boycott dispute. This is not the case in relation to a normal industrial dispute within the Commission's jurisdiction. So this legislation caters for a situation different from the sort of situation which exists within the normal conciliation and arbitration jurisdiction. I think the debate on this legislation has been welcome in some ways. I have begun to see the virtues of imposing a guillotine on debate because I must say that the speeches which have been made have been very concise and to the point. It has been a very refreshing debate to listen to. Senator Durack set a fine example by going to the gravamen of what he intended to say in a very short space of time, which is something he and I do not always do here. The contributions to the debate which have been very serious, short, sharp and concise reflect, I think, a fundamental difference of attitude to the way in which industrial relations in this country should be handled. I do not think there is any point in honourable senators getting up here and reading out catalogues of the damned and unwashed-as honourable senators opposite would see it-engaging in demonology of one kind or another about particular bad or militant unions as Senator Walters and, presumably, Senator Watson want to do. I do not think those things are really to the point when one is considering legislation which must apply with equity across the whole industrial relations scene. I said that some speakers had made concise contributions. Senator Harradine, of course, made the most sensible one of all because he agrees basically with the Government's position. He put his case very well and very concisely in the 10 minutes that were available to him. One leaves things where they belong and does not intrude into areas of constitutional power and of experience, and so on, which have developed well over the years and served this country well. The only thing about which I strongly disagree with Senator Harradine is his pronouncement that the founding fathers were very wise men. I would like to qualify that to some extent. I do not think we should let him get away with that into the wilds of Tasmania as an unchallenged proposition. This is an important piece of legislation. The Government is concerned about it and we are anxious that it proceed. I commend the second readings of these Bills to the Senate. Question put: That the Bills be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the HonourableDouglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 0 —— Button, J. N. Harradine, B. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Coates, J. Jones, G. N. Coleman, R. N. McClelland, DouglasColston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Mason, C. V. J. Chaney, F. M. Messner, A. J. Chipp, D. L. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S. Evans, Jack Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Martin, K. J. Sibraa, K. W. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McIntosh, G. D. Teague, B. C. Foreman, D. J. Lajovic, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(8.32) —The handling of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill is typical of the handling of defence in this country by the Government and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). The attitude of the Government towards defence seems best defined as feebly well intentioned. The problem is that the Government does not know where it is going on defence. The Minister is an ineffective cypher and the result is that the defence is drifting . The effect on the morale of the Defence Force, which is only too well aware when the Government does not know or even seem to care what it is doing, is devastating. This year's defence budget is $5.8 billion, just a little more than the interest payment on the national debt, which has exploded under the present Government to $90 billion-almost of South American standards. The interest on this debt, run up to such levels by the Labor Government, costs every Australian taxpayer $34 a week and a lot more will be added if this disastrous Government continues in office for long. The effect of the Government's wastefulness and improvidence in all sorts of areas reflects on defence for there are heavy defence capital payments to be made over the next few years for essential items of equipment, such as the FA18 fighters and the FFG destroyers coming from the United States of America. These are essential capital requirements. But what has been happening is that the defence vote, for purposes other than these capital purchases, has been reduced sharply and the training, the operational effectiveness and the morale-which depends on the first two-of our Defence Force have been diminished very seriously. If one wishes to have an effective Defence Force, one must provide sufficient funds for it to steam, fly, drive and practise its skills. This Government is providing grossly inadequate funds for all these purposes. Senator Gareth Evans —I raise a point of order. Senator Hamer seems to be using the occasion of this Bill to wax lyrical and indignant about defence policy at large. Mr President, I draw your attention to the relatively narrow scope of this particular legislation which has to do with Defence Force discipline, retirement benefits and matters of that technical order. I put to you that he is not at liberty to use the occasion as one to talk at large about defence policy. Senator Durack —Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. It really is a very extraordinary point of order. The Attorney-General has been absent all day and has not really been aware of the events that have been occurring here. The fact is that this legislation covers an enormous range of defence matters. We are debating the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill which covers remuneration , sets up a tribunal to deal with the remuneration for the personnel of the services, deals with lump sum payments, deals with a discipline and amends one of the major pieces of legislation in the defence area. The point of order of the kind the Attorney-General has raised is really quite absurd. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The Bill is a Bill for an Act to amend certain legislation concerning the Defence Force and for other purposes and the amendments are wide-ranging indeed. I think Senator Hamer is within the ambit of the Bill. Senator Gareth Evans —With respect, Mr President, I would ask you to reconsider that ruling on the basis that the particular legislation that is dealt with is quite specific as to its subject matter and it is simply not permissible and not consistent with the Standing Orders of this House to play ducks and drakes with the spirit and the letter of the rules in this particular respect. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not uphold the point of order. It has long been the practice in the Senate to use the long title of a Bill in ruling on relevancy. I have so used it and I do not uphold the point of order. I call Senator Hamer. Senator Elstob —As long as he does not talk about aircraft carriers. Senator HAMER —Actually, Senator Elstob, I will be talking about aircraft carriers very briefly in a moment because it is a very important area. Mr President, I thank you for that ruling. The fact is that this Government is providing inadequate funds mainly because of the way it is wasting funds in other areas such as on wasteful and unnecessary Public Service spending. It is providing inadequate funds to keep our Defence Force efficient. The problem really is that the Government does not know what it wants the Defence Force to do. Almost everyone agrees that for the defence of this country-I will give the Senate a couple of examples-we require an in-flight refuelling capability and airborne early warning aircraft; the Government has done nothing about either. We require a ready reaction army force with an airborne capability; the Government has done nothing about that. One can go on and on with the list of failures of the Government to follow through on programs that were being processed by the previous Government partly because of this Government's lack of interest in defence and partly because of the ineffectiveness of the Minister for Defence. This Government does not have a clear concept of the role of our Defence Force. For instance, it pays lip service to ANZUS and then does nothing when New Zealand moves to destroy it. It puts the whole concept at risk by appalling acts of clumsiness such as the Minister's refusal to permit the British aircraft carrier Invincible to dock here, causing alarm to all of our allies and friends who are led to doubt our reliability and common sense. The Government claims to be interested in the reserve forces yet it does nothing to encourage them and a great deal to discourage them. Reserve force members receive a lower daily rate of pay than their regular force equivalents. They used to be compensated by receiving their pay tax free. Now the Government is taxing it. Great encouragement, I must say! But enough of the failures of this Government in defence. Its failure is notorious and complete. The longer it stays in office the more damage it will do. What we have before us is a Bill, much of which is uncontroversial. A matter such as the abolition of the requirement for collectors of military insignia to obtain permits is worthy and removes a petty obstacle. Changing the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff to Chief of the Defence Force is a minor improvement, though typically of this Government it does not do the thing properly. Defence Force Commander would be a better and more descriptive title of what his role is. Worse still, the Government, in going to the extent of changing by an Act of Parliament this title, has left the titles of the other three professional heads of the Services unchanged. We have a Chief of the Air Staff, a Chief of Naval Staff and a Chief of the General Staff. These titles would be more correctly descriptive of their roles if they were described as Navy Commander, Army Commander and Air Force Commander. These archaic titles which the Government has left just show that, when it does make amendments, it does not grasp what it should be doing. I think the trouble is that these new titles might well be too clear and simple for this Government. The abolition of the annual training obligations for members of the emergency forces was intended by the Fraser Government and is implemented by this Government. These forces are intended to be a supplement, and a very important supplement. They are made up of people who have a minimum of three, usually six and sometimes more, years of professional training in the Services. They are a vital element in the expansion of our Defence Force in an emergency. At the moment, though, each member is required to render two weeks of service each year . This really is a waste of time for people and an expense for the community. It is a waste of time because they are already qualified anyway within the first few years after they have left the service in which they were engaged. The Fraser Government decided, on the advice of the chiefs of staff, that there was no need to require them to do this service because they were fully trained. The only exception suggested was if their category was changed and they needed training in their new category. The present Government has endorsed this and the amendment in the Bill in this respect is accepted by the Opposition. The amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act are by far the greatest part of this legislation. They are needed primarily because the Defence Force Discipline Act, which was passed when we were in government, was intended to act in conjunction with the Criminal Investigation Bill. The Bill was before the last Parliament when it was dissolved in 1983 and it consequently lapsed. This Government has not done anything about it. As a result, new provisions have to be put into the Defence Force Discipline Act to perform the functions originally intended by the Criminal Investigation Bill. The Opposition accepts the Government's proposal to review this discipline Act after it has been in operation for three years. When we are in government we will do just that. We welcome the undertaking by the Minister, presumably speaking for the incoming Liberal-National Party Minister, to present to the Parliament the report of any review. The proposed annual reports on the operations of the legislation by the Judge Advocate General must also be tabled in this Parliament , one hopes, uncensored by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). This new discipline Act introduces major changes into the way the Defence Force operates. It replaces with a new system a well understood although perhaps archaic and peculiar but disciplined system which operated for many years, and which worked. It is important for the welfare and efficiency of the Defence Force that the new system works fairly and effectively, as it is intended to. We hope that if any shortcomings are revealed they will be corrected immediately and will not have to wait for the three-year review. The second major change in this legislation is the creation of the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. This too we support. The Tribunal will review salaries and salary related allowances for the Defence Force at least every two years. The Bill also establishes the Office of Defence Force Advocate, who will act in many ways as the voice of the Services in the proceedings of this Tribunal. This is a very valuable provision. The machinery for determining the pay and allowances of service personnel must take into account their conditions of service, the special demands of service life, and the nature and risks involved in that life. The defence of the nation is the first task of a government, and it is up to the Government to see that the machinery is in place to ensure that we attract efficient and high quality people into the Defence Force. I hope this legislation will prevent any erosion of the conditions of the Defence Force in relation to other government employees. So much for what we agree with; now for what we do not agree with. The section that implements changes to the Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme is claimed by the Government to compensate Defence Force personnel for the Government's iniquitous changes to the taxation on lump sum superannuation payments. It does no such thing. The conditions of Defence Force personnel on retirement are different from those of anyone else in the community. Lump sum benefits in the general community are normally given at age 55 or more to people who are leaving the work force to allow them to provide for their retirement. The Defence Force is not like that at all. Only one in a hundred of the men and women joining the Defence Force can expect to serve beyond the age of 55. All the rest are arbitrarily retired, whether they wish to be retired or not, at an earlier age because it is vital that we keep the leadership of our Defence Force relatively young. There is a trap that in peace time, in order to provide proper conditions of service for individuals in the Defence Force, they allow the age to creep up. In the British Army operating in France in 1940 the battalion commanders averaged 42 years of age. That might seem young to many honourable senators here, but at that age they were beyond the physical capability of commanding a battalion in the field. When the British went back to France four years later the average battalion commander's age was six years younger. We must watch that we do not push the age of our servicemen up beyond the age at which they can perform their duties. We must keep them young so that they can perform their very taxing duties in the field, in command of ships, flying aircraft, or whatever; but we must compensate them for that inevitable fact when we retire them young so that younger people can take over. This is the thing that the Government does not appear to recognise. What we are asking men and women to do is to join a high risk, unsettled, short career with only moderate pay, in the interests of the nation as a whole. Surely the very least we can do is to provide them with adequate resources so that they can set up in a new career, after they leave the defence force, on a level their talents justify, when they are arbitrarily retired in their middle or early middle age. This is necessary not because of their deficiencies but in order to maintain the turnover in the Defence Force. As the 1972 report of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation reported, the justification for the inclusion of such a provision in the original DFRB legislation was that a serviceman often requires a capital sum on his retirement to assist in his resettlement and re- establishment in civilian life. This commutation is not just a matter of remuneration; it is compensation for the disadvantages of service life. Service personnel give their best and most productive years to Australia. They and their families are posted around Australia and overseas. They are often unable to buy a house whereas their civilian counterparts are able to. In early middle age most of them have to re-enter civilian life-they often have young children- establish a home and find work. All the Government is allowing them in compensation for this iniquitous tax on their lump sum superannuation is a higher proportion of their commutation entitlement. At the moment a service person who is retiring after more than 20 years service is allowed to commute four years of his salary out of his entitlement. Of course , his annual retirement benefit is reduced actuarially by the appropriate amount . The Government is offering to allow him to increase the service he is allowed to commute to five years. He will get more in a lump sum but his annual income will be reduced correspondingly. The Government is allowing servicemen to take the money out of what they would be entitled to as annual income for the rest of their life. The Government is requiring these people who retire arbitrarily and necessarily at an earlier age to have the same sort of conditions and the same sort of impositions as people who retire at the end of their working life at age 55. It is also worth reminding the Senate that all of this was not supposed to happen, if one is foolish enough to believe the promise of the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). Before the last election the Prime Minister promised that there would be no new tax on lump sum superannuation payments. He is now making almost the same promise: Although the Government will probably introduce a capital gains tax, the family home will be exempt. He is making the same sort of promises again. After the last election he repeated the promise that there would be no tax on lump sum superannuation. An article on 18 April 1983 in the Australian Financial Review stated that the Prime Minister had confirmed there would be no increase in the tax rate for lump sum superannuation payments. This information was passed on to all Defence Force establishments during the last election campaign. They believed him once; will they believe him twice? This is important legislation and the Opposition is not opposing it. It is important because there is a need, although we think the measure is inadequate and quite unsatisfactory, for early passage of this Bill so that the amendments to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act, relating to the increased amount of pay that a serviceman can commute-from four to five years- will go through. We think that this provision is grossly inadequate, nevertheless it is a great deal better than nothing. We would be most reluctant to stop that change going through. I repeat: We think it is inadequate and inappropriate but it is better than nothing. We do not want to block it. Nevertheless, we feel that the Government has behaved very churlishly towards its devoted servants in the Defence Force, people who have served for a long time under arduous and difficult conditions, without being adequately or greatly remunerated. This is the sort of action which does great damage to the morale and the future of the Defence Force. I now come to the Opposition's amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate condemns the Government for its failure to keep its promises to the men and women of the defence forces on taxation of lump sum superannuation payments, and for its attack on the ability of defence personnel to accumulate capital to provide for their retirement'. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.56) —The Australian Democrats support the provisions of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 as far as they go, and it is not necessary at this hour of night for me to go over it again and repeat the excellent exposition of its good points that we have just heard from Senator Hamer. We agree that the establishment of an independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal with its Defence Force Advocate is an excellent thing. It will give members of the Defence Force the right that is enjoyed by most other sections of the community of representation in their own industrial affairs, especially in the pay fixing machinery. This is a move forward, perhaps we could even say into the twentieth century. I listened with care to the second reading amendment that was moved by Senator Hamer on behalf of the Opposition. We will not support that amendment because we believe that it is against all the principles of equity in that a law meant to apply to a class of people should not have one exception, especially when many groups of people claim that they should be exempted. This has been a most controversial area, as we all know. What about airline pilots and others of that kind? The point of equity is overriding and must apply in this case. This does not limit in any way our sympathy towards groups, such as the one that Senator Hamer mentioned. When the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, was in opposition and was the shadow Minister for Defence, he said that a Labor government would not disadvantage service personnel and, indeed, in government he has made some moves in the right direction. In October 1983 Defence Force members won concessions from the Federal Government which had the effect of reducing tax on their lump sum superannuation payouts. The new package allowed Defence Force personnel who retired early to receive a lump sum payment equal to five years instead of four years. That provision has been incorporated into the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984, clauses 83 and 84. Earlier this year, on 30 June, Senator Jack Evans, speaking for the Australian Democrats, raised the question of defence personnel being discriminated against and he pointed out then, and I reiterate, that Defence Force members are allowed commutation because of the special provision relating to their service. Senator Evans indicated that separate provisions were needed for servicemen and clauses 83 and 84 of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill are doing just that in such a way that the law is being applied uniformly. The effect is being cushioned by giving service personnel an extra year. In essence, the legislation will provide service people with a lump sum payment approximately equal to their present entitlement. The legislation is, of course, a miscellany of amendments to the various defence Acts-a true omnibus Bill. I was surprised to hear the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) describe this as a Bill of narrow limits, because if it is anything it is not that. For this reason the Australian Democrats feel that this is an excellent opportunity to move an amendment which I moved in this place many years ago, but which is becoming even more topical and current as time goes by. It relates to the overseas service of Australian troops. In view of the uncertain status of this legislation, we have amendments both to the second reading and the Committee stage. I foreshadow a second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. It says: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that Australian troops should not be sent overseas in a war or in a peace-keeping role without the consent of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. I shall move that amendment, Madam Acting Deputy President, at the second reading stage, following the first amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Australian troops would not be sent overseas in a war or in a peacekeeping role without the agreement of both Houses of the Federal Parliament. The Australian Democrats believe this to be something which should have applied in this country many years ago and which is a proper piece of law in any modern democracy, and not to have it is a dangerous anachronism. The provision that we are proposing as an amendment to our legislation is similar to one which has already applied for a considerable period in Canada, whose troops cannot be sent overseas in a war or in a peacekeeping without the agreement of both Houses of the Federal Parliament in Ottawa. There are considerable merits to this as a sanction and a check on the Executive government. The Australian Democrats consider this to be the most effective way to prevent forever Australia becoming entangled in another Vietnam war. In the uncertain future which faces our country and the world, the chances are greater, with every year that passes, that we might become entangled in another regional conflict of that type. All around us we have countries to which we try to accommodate ourselves which are becoming virtually outright military dictatorships. One can only think of the outrageous civil rights situation in the Philippines and the gross imposition on the people of that country by a military autocracy, led by President Marcos. Whether or not President Marcos survives I predict that the system in the Philippines is likely to remain the same into the indefinite future. What would be the situation if an executive government of Australia made some kind of deal, without proper reference to the Parliament and the people, to support the Marcos regime, or one like it in the event of its demise? How many young Australian men would be tied up in a war of that kind, in an archipelago of many islands? The Republic of Indonesia is not without its instabilities. There again is a situation in which I do not believe that there is anything like the degree of persecution and military autocracy as in the Philippines but those elements are there. No one can pretend that the Republic of Indonesia is a democracy in the sense that we would understand that. Does Australia want to become involved at some stage, because of some kind of deal carried out by an Executive government which, after all, could always push its measures quite quickly through one House of this Parliament, the House of Representatives, because it controls that House, and that House has no sanction whatever on the executive government? I remind some honourable senators of history. Between 1962 and 1971, 50,000 Australian servicemen, from all three services, were engaged in the war in Vietnam. During that decade, 492 members of the Australian forces were killed. We lost nearly 500 of our young men. Of those deaths, 187 were of young men who had no choice as to this tragic early end to their lives, because they were conscripts sent to fight in an unwinnable and unjustifiable foreign adventure, which now, and judged by any standard, was a disaster. Far from deterring the spread of communism in Asia, it actually contributed significantly to it and speeded up that process. It is beyond doubt that the dislocation caused in Vietnam led to the great acceleration of the war in that country. Going back through history to 1946, I can remember when Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh said: 'Give us some weapon against the extremists; you will never regret it', and the Eastern powers, France and the United States, turned their backs on them. At that time the coalition in Hanoi which included the Roman Catholic Church and a variety of moderate forces, disappeared. We were foredoomed then to the long war which eventually resulted in the whole of Vietnam becoming a communist state. Because of the nature of the war, inevitably it extended into Kampuchea. I recall visiting Kampuchea not long before this happened. It is worth saying that it was one of the best organised and best run states in South East Asia under the control of Norodom Sihanouk when he became Prime Minister. One went to that country and found prosperous countryside villages and towns. One found the highest spending country in Asia in terms of education and national development. That was greatly encouraged by the Australian Government which had advisers in Cambodia. That situation was smashed and destroyed as a result of the Vietnam adventure. Because of that Kampuchea is now virtually a communist state. Certainly it is under that kind of control. Any of us who have the naivety to believe that it will be anything other than that, I think, are confusing ourselves. The same situation applies in respect of the third Indo-Chinese state, Laos. In the Vietnam war we committed the enormous achievement by our military means of accentuating greatly the extension of communism through South East Asia, having of course done the same thing earlier in China. In other words, over the years military methods in Asia have accelerated and in history will be looked on as having created the communist zone of Asia and South East Asia. Senator MacGibbon —Get the facts, not fantasy. Senator MASON —I remind Senator MacGibbon, who has just said that he wants facts and not fantasy, that as well as those deaths in Vietnam many more young Australians-nearly 3,000-were injured. These facts may be unpalatable to Senator MacGibbon since it was his political party that perpetrated this monstrosity. I remind Senator MacGibbon that of those people more than 1,000 were conscripts. They were young men who had no right to be sent there. They went there through no choice of their own. It was an intolerable act virtually in peacetime when a decision was taken by our Government to constitute a phoney sense of war, an emergency which did not exist, never had existed and which contributed to exactly the opposite effect of what was intended. Any reasonable government would have foreseen that it would have done that. Anybody who has studied the history of South East Asia and the fall of China would know that a foreign adventure in Vietnam must inevitably lead to that effect, as the French found out at Dien Bien Phu. It is a fact that people who take Senator MacGibbon's apparent sense of persuasion never learn from history. That is one of the tragedies of our modern world. These then were the consequences of a decision taken to involve Australia in a war without the proper consultation of its people and its Parliament and without the right, which we are seeking in our proposed amendment, of the Parliament, as the voice of the people, to have some control over the situation. I was delighted and very pleased to hear in Question Time last Thursday a Minister in this place, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, make an impassioned declaration in answer to a question. Obviously he has a genuine and strongly held belief that Australia most definitely should not have been involved in the Vietnam war. I was pleased to hear him recall that. After such a heartfelt speech from Senator Grimes I am confident that he at least-that is if he is here, of course-from the Government side will vote in favour of the amendment. I do not see that in any conscience Senator Grimes can vote the other way. I do not see that in any conscience members of the Australian Labor Party can vote against this amendment. Senator Gareth Evans —Would this amendment have stopped us getting into the Vietnam war in the mid-1960s, given the composition of the Senate then? Senator MASON —Senator Gareth Evans asks me whether the amendment would have stopped us getting into the war. At least it would have provided a mechanism whereby the matter would have been debated freely in both Houses of the Parliament. I take the honourable senator's point. As he knows, a different situation applies now. We have a situation in which the Senate would have the power to debate and discuss the matter and to raise the questions which the Australian people would want to know before they became involved in the most important and significant decision in which any community can be involved; that is, an act of war which involves every man, woman and child in the country perhaps for years ahead, which destroys the future of so many and which must profoundly affect the lives of perhaps a whole generation. What more serious matter could be brought before the parliament of a country? Other people recognise this. As I have told honourable senators, other civilised, responsible democracies, including Canada, do this because it is seen as an important and serious decision. It is not something an executive decides to do for its own reasons after a late Cabinet meeting. It needs to be brought to the attention of the people. I know that most honourable senators here, certainly all Labor senators, must, in all conscience, vote for this amendment. The shameful history of the Vietnam war debacle is quite enough to convince any reasonable person to vote for it. I would be most interested later to hear the views of the Government on why honourable senators should not vote for the amendment. I hope it does not bring up the red herring again that it is much better if only the House of Representatives makes the decision. The House of Representatives is always the rubber stamp of the Executive. It is controlled by the Executive. It cannot provide the situation whereby there is discussion and debate on an issue of such fundamental importance. Let us look again, briefly, at the historical parallel. For many years it was stated officially that Australia fought in Vietnam in answer to a call for help from the Government of South Vietnam. That view is now completely discredited and known to be untrue. Papers released in the United States as a result of the very effective freedom of information law that country has-I remind Senator Gareth Evans that we still do not have effective legislation in this country, which is to his discredit; it is about time we did have it-contain strong indications that the United States wanted Australia in South Vietnam with other countries so that the United States would not be seen to be acting alone. That is the direction of the truth. A decision was taken by an executive to commit the Australian people to a disastrous course of action on the basis of what probably, on the balance of history, is perceived to have been a lie. That was the motivation. That is why Australia was there. Of course we were not told at the time or subsequently that that was the reason. It was stated over and over again by the then Government that the reason was that the government of a free country had asked us to help. However, that was not true. It was not until the Freedom of Information Act of another country, ironically enough, revealed that, that the truth emerged. The truth, having emerged, can never again be concealed. We have the history of that situation clear in our minds. Again, we must look back to the motivation of executive government; its honesty. Should an executive government be left alone in such a situation without the control of Parliament and the debate in Parliament that would result in the proper questions being asked and the proper answers being given? That control, of course, would result from our proposed amendment should it become a law. The amendment I will move in the Committee stage is quite lengthy. It goes further than the amendment to the motion for the second reading. It is worth covering some aspects of it because it is important. Basically, section 50C of the Defence Act 1903 requires Australian military forces to serve overseas. It does not contain any provisions whatsoever limiting the carte blanche right of the government to send troops overseas. That is the purpose of our amendment. In other countries the provision we propose applies. In Canada, the Governor-in- Council may deploy troops anywhere, at any time, subject to Parliament meeting within 10 days to approve the action taken. In the Federal Republic of Germany there are limitations. There is a constitutional prohibition against German forces participating in a war of aggression. Participation in a collective military action for the preservation of peace is permissible only if that force is deployed in a situation which, at that time, represents an illegal attack on the Bundesrepublic. Article 9 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan provides: . . . The Japanese people for ever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation . . . The self-defence forces are authorised to protect the peace and stability of Japan against direct and indirect aggression. Self-defence force personnel may not be deployed outside Japan. That has been interpreted by successive governments as precluding participation in United Nations peacekeeping and observation teams. In the United Kingdom, there are no restrictions on the monarch as commander-in-chief to deploy forces on the advice of his Ministers with a successful no confidence motion in Parliament and a subsequent election as the ultimate and only sanction. In the United States, the President has independent power to take military action whenever the interests of the United States require it. Congress, however, has power to raise and support armies and to declare war. However, a study prepared in 1951 for the Committee on Foreign Relations cites at least 125 incidents in America's history in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without congressional authorisation. So the Congress's powers in respect of that right have been eroded and, I add at this point, to the great concern of the world. There is now great apprehension throughout the world about the powers which are lying in the hands of President Reagan, an aging man who is likely to be re-elected and who has this total responsibility and power-a single person in a democracy-to carry out this role. Again, there is a lesson which I think supports the Australians Democrats' amendment. Our amendment seeks to place the responsibility for a decision to send Australian troops abroad with the two Houses of Parliament, subject to exceptions covering the movement of personnel in the normal course of their activities and their need to take quick action in an emergency. The government would still be able to act quickly in an emergency declared by proclamation but must obtain parliamentary approval within 48 hours. If Parliament were not in session, the provisions require that it be recalled to make this decision. I would have thought that was a serious enough step, taking the country to war, to make it necessary to recall Parliament. The amendment would give that provision alone, to allow Parliament to be recalled to look at the nature of a war and its rationale. I wish to make the point at this stage that we do not necessarily see this as merely operating in an emergency situation. It is only the subsequent recall of Parliament which would be necessary in that kind of emergency. In a normal situation where a government wished to send a force overseas for any reason and where it had the time to do so, it would of course be required to put it through and justify it before both Houses of Parliament in the normal way. The provision has important exclusions. It excludes overseas service by members of the Defence Force pursuant to their temporary attachment, as provided by section 116B, as part of an Australian diplomatic or consular mission on an Australian vessel or aircraft not engaged in hostilities or operations during which hostilities are likely to occur, for the purpose of their education or training or for purposes related to the procurement of equipment or stores. In those provisions we have tried to provide a situation which is realistic and in which the government has the utmost freedom of action for the normal and ordinary purposes that its armed forces might be concerned with, short of the two major areas of actual hostilities- Senator Gareth Evans —What about hot pursuit of a fishing boat into international waters? Senator MASON —I will go back to my last sentence because I feel that I have not made it sufficiently plain to those people here. In those provisions we have tried to provide a situation which is realistic and in which the government has the utmost freedom of action-I think it is reasonable that we should do this-for the normal and ordinary purposes that its armed forces might be concerned with, short of the two major areas of actual hostilities, and for use as a fighting force or as a peacekeeping force in some remote country. As I said earlier, this is a provision which ought to have been in the law of this country many years ago. It is in the law of other countries. It is something which I believe the citizens of this country want and require. It represents the fact that the power delegated from the people rests not with the Executive. Let us make it quite clear: The executive government does not have delegated power from the people. The place that has delegated power from the people is the Parliament. In Australia that is the two Houses of the Parliament. Our amendment would correct a great deficiency and evil in the Australian legal system. A balance would be properly established and machinery properly set down by which the people of this country-its young men, women and everybody here- would be protected against another happening, another disaster, another tragedy such as the Vietnam war proved to be. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(9.18) — The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 is a very large Bill. It affects a whole range of issues pertaining to the Australian defence forces. Typically under the Australian Labor Party, defence gets no priority and debate on this important package of legislation has been guillotined through tonight in the dying stages of this Parliament before an unnecessary, premature half-life election. That is not surprising because defence has the lowest priority under Labor. There is nothing else that Labor touches that it thinks less of than the defence of this country or the needs of the defence forces. Maybe that is why the Labor Party has never had a credible defence policy with the people of Australia. In the very long Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 31 August 1984 we find that defence appears on page 19. It was the very last of 10 major topics identified. When it finally surfaced as the very last interest of this Government, it rated two lines. Earlier in the Budget Speech, more than three- quarters of a page, as opposed to the two lines for defence, is devoted to first home owners. Of course, that appears under the housing section of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer, which is Item No. 4 as opposed to Item No. 10-the last item-for defence. I appreciate the need to house the people of Australia. But, quite seriously, what value are homes if they are not defended, if they are not secure? As I said earlier, that is an honest projection of Labor's values. We are dealing here with a pacifist, neutralist government. I am certain the Australian Democrats will never be in power so the accolade of being the most pacifist government that Australia will ever have rests firmly in the hands of the Australian Labor Party. We do not have time to debate this important legislation tonight because we have had the guillotine and the gag dropped on us. We expect that because we do not look for any nurture and development of democratic principles, of freedom of debate and discussion, when Labor is running the country. I must say that all of us on this side of the chamber are shocked at the way the Australian Democrats have supported the Labor Party to the hilt. The great disappointment we all feel is that they supported not only the moving of the gag but also in a quite incredible performance denied us a one hour debate under Standing Orders on that matter after the gag was moved. We are a House of review. As Senator Harradine said, we have a function of audit and inquiry on behalf of the States as to how the funds are spent. It is our role to examine legislation brought before us. We have had specific promises from the Democrats. They have proved to be as hollow as Mr Hawke's promises on the hustings last year that 90 per cent of Australians would pay less tax under Labor. Some 90 per cent of Australians pay more tax. As Senator Baume so eloquently said, and instanced accurately, there have been innumerable occasions on which the Democrats have gone on public record promising not to gag debate in this chamber. Senator Baume instanced the 13 September 1980 when the Democrats gave an unambiguous undertaking which was proved in the light of history to be absolutely worthless. It is rather sad that a small group such as the Australian Democrats who re- present at best six per cent or seven per cent of the Australian voting population can hold the other 94 per cent of Australia to ransom without principle or conscience. Let us move on from this matter, although I observe in passing that the Australian Democrat numbers are depleted. The Australian Democrats with the Government have denied the proper parliamentary practices to this chamber and have denied us the right of debate. I notice that one of the Democrats members, Senator Michael Macklin, is not even here and has not been here all week. His colleagues are in the unconscionable position of stopping debate here where we might profitably be doing something for the country while Senator Macklin is out all week campaigning and trying to drum up votes. It makes rather hollow the claim that they are elected to keep the other members of the Senate honest. If they were elected to keep us honest, I imagine that duty is discharged here, not out on the hustings in Queensland, or wherever Senator Macklin might be tonight. Before I turn to a discussion of the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill I would like to deal very briefly with the Democrat amendment. This happens to be a hoary Democrat perennial. It demonstrates that they just do not understand how this Parliament works. They do not understand how the Westminster system operates. As I interjected on Senator Mason and said that he is lost in space. He thinks he is in the United States Senate or somewhere else. The facts of the matter are that the conduct-I am sure that for the first time in my life I have the agreement of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on this point- Senator Gareth Evans —First and the last. Senator MacGIBBON —Probably the first and last occasion. The conduct of defence and foreign affairs in the Westminster system is the province of the executive government of the day. Like it or not, that is the way we live. For Senator Mason or any other Democrat to propose, on the run, this amendment to legislation to which this amendment does not apply, is an irresponsible action in a legislative sense. It shows that they do not understand the importance of the change they are proposing. Without canvassing the case as to whether it is a good or a bad move to do what they are proposing, if they understood what they were doing, if they had the faintest glimmer of comprehension, they would place a separate substantive motion before the Senate and have it debated on its merits. If we are to go down the path they propose it deserves our undivided attention. It is not something that can be picked up on the run and passed with the flippancy with which the Democrats approach most of the legislation that comes before this place. This Bill is a very large omnibus Bill which affects a lot of the defence legislation of this country. Many of these amendments are overdue and the Opposition supports the great majority of them as being necessary and desirable. One of the main provisions of this Bill is that it removes the obligation on members of the emergency force of each of the three Australian defence services to render annual service but it allows the respective chiefs of staff to permit members of the emergency forces to render service other than continuous full time service for the purpose of training. It also expands the power of the Minister for Defence to determine financial conditions. Formerly the only powers that the Minister for Defence had over financial conditions related to beneficial determinations. It establishes an independent Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal with power to determine financial conditions of service, and I think it requires that Tribunal to review matters every two years. This legislation sets up the office of Defence Force Advocate to represent both the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Australian defence forces. It dispenses with the requirement for collectors of military insignia to be registered. A large part of the Bill deals with amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Finally, it abolishes the now obsolescent Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund Board. The functions of that Board will be taken over by the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority and the Bill alters some of the determinations of the present Board. I will speak in some detail on those later. The Chief of Defence Force Staff is to become the Chief of the Defence Force. Mr Deputy President, the Opposition supports this Bill although it has some major reservations in relation to superannuation provisions under the DFRDB requirements. As I said, the great bulk of the legislation relates to legal changes to the Defence Force Discipline Act, involving offences, courts martial, and matters of that nature. Most of those changes were set in train three Ministers back, in the time of Sir James Killen, and it is probably a fair comment on the speed at which the civilian component of the Department of Defence operates that the changes are only now coming to the surface. We support those changes which relate to the disciplinary Act and we support the abolition of the licence to collect military memorabilia because it retains the prohibition on the manufacture, sale and wearing of military equipment or decorations. We have a slight reservation about the creation of the Defence Force Advocate because it does seem that, while the Advocate represents both the Chief of Defence Force Staff and the Australian Defence Force, there is a reasonable possibility that at times there might be a genuine conflict of interest. We support changing the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff to the Chief of the Defence Force because it never was intended that he would have that title as he is in fact chief of the Australian Defence Force. The recommendations of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, whose report was presented a couple of weeks ago, was to increase the power of the Chief of the Defence Force by setting up a joint force headquarters permanently under this command. I comment in passing on the comments of the Chief of Defence Force Staff on Friday, 12 October, as reported in the Canberra Times, in relation to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I quote from that article: The Chief of Defence Force Staff, General Sir Phillip Bennett, questioned how the Committee could have reached such damning conclusions. He said: Certainly there was nothing in any of the discussions I had with them which could have led them to these sort of conclusions . . . With the greatest of kindness and respect, I really do not think that parliamentary committees have to clear their reports for the approval of the Chief of Defence Force Staff before they submit them to the Parliament. However, while supporting the move to change the title of the Chief of Defence Force Staff to Chief of the Defence Force, I cannot let pass the fact that the titles of the three chiefs of staff-the Chief of Naval Staff, Chief of General Staff and Chief of Air Staff-remain as they were. Really, their titles should be Chief of the Navy, Chief of the Army and Chief of the Air Force, if consistency is to be applied. I would now like to move to the changes to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. We think they are rather mean and mealy-mouthed. In no way at all do they compensate for the terrible move the Government made in placing a 30 per cent tax on retirement benefits-superannuation lump sum payments-which has achieved such notoriety in the electorate. We think that the taxation of lump sum payments is wrong in principle, but it is particularly unfair and unreasonable for Service personnel. Furthermore, it represents yet another broken promise on the part of this Government because the Minister promised in the campaign not to disadvantage any serviceman in relation to Defence Force retirement benefits entitlement. The changes that are proposed in this Act do not compensate for the way they are taking away 30 per cent of the lump sum payment that servicemen will get on retirement. The present Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund was introduced in 1972. The Jess Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation, which recommended that the Fund be set up, noted in its report that the justification for the inclusion of the commutation provision in the original DFRB legislation was that a serviceman often had a requirement for a capital sum on his retirement to assist in his resettlement and re-establishment in civilian life. What will happen now is that when he puts out his hand for that sum of money as a relatively young man-most servicemen retire somewhere around 36, 38 or 40 years of age, after 20 years service in the defence forces with the need to re-establish themselves for another 20 to 25 years in normal civilian life-he finds that that sum has been cut by a third. In compensation for this, the Government with great magnanimity says: 'You can have an extra year. Instead of commuting four years of your pension you can have five'. The consequence of taking five years of your pension is that the residual pension is reduced on a pro rata basis, so the Government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The net effect is that the serviceman or woman is still suffering for that 30 per cent that has been taken out of the lump sum payment. When after 20 years service most service men or women leave the services they need to buy and furnish a home. Most of them have young children. They probably need a car, which they may not have, and the children have to be educated because they are probably in their teens. Furthermore, the ex-serviceman may be unable to get a job immediately and will have to live off this money and his pension payment for a while until he gets a job. If we look at what is involved there, he needs probably $40,000 or $50,000 at least to buy a house, maybe $6, 000 to $7,000 to buy a car, and maybe $200 per child for education at a very conservative estimate. Then fittings would be required for the house at around $ 6,500 to $8,500. Therefore, the capital sum required by the ex-serviceman or woman would be around $55,000, at the barest minimum. These service men and women have given up 20 years of their most active years to an arduous lifestyle and have undergone a far higher degree of risk and discomfort than have any of their civilian counterparts. The life involves travel and staying in service or rented accommodation. Having given his time to his country, the serviceman now finds that at a time when he needs income he is being turned out into civilian life. It is intentional that those who serve in the armed forces retire before they reach age 55, in order to ensure young, active people in the services. The Government's proposal is shameful and inadequate. A commodore or above in the Navy, a group captain or above in the Air Force, or a colonel or above in the Army can run on until he is 55, but lower ranking officers have to get out before that time. That is all very well for the officers, but one must realise that the great majority of people in the services are non-commissioned ranks and ordinary soldiers, sailors and airmen. Those service personnel have to retire in their early 40s. They are turned out. They have to serve 20 years to be entitled to a pension. They now find that one-third of that money commuted will go with this most unfair lump sum superannuation tax. The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund was specifically designed to allow service men and women to retire after 20 years service in order to maintain the vitality and capability of the Defence Force. It is in no sense designed to fulfil an old age maintenance function as is found in the retirement programs of most superannuation plans. It was intended to help shape a professional, dedicated, well-trained, young, dynamic national defence force. The commutation from the scheme was not designed to be a form of remuneration but, rather, a compensation for enforced early severance-the critical words are 'enforced early severance'-to enable re-establishment in a second career or, for most, to buy a first home. In this case servicemen are allowed to commute four years of their pension as a lump sum. Because of the 30 per cent lump sum superannuation tax, the Government , with cynical magnanimity, has given them the right to commute five years, but that leads to a diminution in the pension entitlement they get for the rest of the time they draw their pension. As the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service said in its report: However, it should be noted that this would be achieved by a reduction in subsequent annual rates of pension and accordingly the change would appear to be cosmetic rather than of any substantial benefit. It is true that there is no financial benefit in what the Government is proposing. Nevertheless the Opposition supports this legislation and the majority of changes to defence legislation that it contains. We very much regret the poverty of spirit that moves the Labor Party on the DFRDB requirements, but as we are realistic we take the view that half a loaf is better than no loaf. We will take what is offered until we get into government and improve the situation . Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(9.40) —The establishment of a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, the amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act and the establishment of a Defence Force Advocate are all welcome but overdue measures. In examining the functions of the Advocate, there is a problem of conflict. One of the functions of the Advocate is not only to advise the Chief of Defence Force Staff in relation to matters referred to the Tribunal but also to represent the defence forces in proceedings before the Tribunal. I think there is a very serious conflict of interest. Matters of concern to the Chief of the Defence Force could be at variance with the interests of the rank and file who are supposed to be represented before the Tribunal. I think the Government will have to review this position in light of future events. The other matter that concerns me about the Defence Force Advocate is that he shall be appointed by the Minister on a part time basis. He must be experienced in industrial matters and have a knowledge of the nature of service in the defence forces, and that does not really amount to very much. I would have thought that to cater appropriately the appointee should be a legal officer operating within the Services. That would be much more realistic than having an outsider. If one looks behind the scenes, one of the concerns within the defence forces is the ever-present push by Public Service personnel to exercise authority over Defence. This is one of their major problems at the moment. We see it in trifling little issues such as the charging for sporting fixtures after hours and so on-nitpicking areas. I wonder whether this could be interpreted as a fairly obvious push by certain Public Service personnel to exercise even more authority over the men in uniform. The plight of the defence forces in terms of low morale and a deterioration in conditions of service has become common knowledge right throughout the community. However, it is a little late. This legislation contains no specific capacity for revitalisation for overcoming these problems of low morale. I remember a long time ago Mr Killen, as he then was, foreshadowing amendments to and describing some of the archaic provisions of the original legislation. The legislation now before us could well be a recipe for the creation and/or exacerbation of tensions within the services . The augmented powers of the Minister for Defence in the determination of financial conditions of the Services are quite extensive, albeit that they will be carried out through a defence forces tribunal. The fact that the Minister will be vested with the power to authorise, for example, deductions from salaries or allowances in respect of an alleged debt while the member is denied a means of statutory disputation should these impositions be unduly harsh or even invalid will surely imperil already tense relations. Yet appeasement gestures which allow for an increase in the proportion of the retirement and invalid benefits which may be commuted will prove cosmetic rather than substantive. While they initially minimise lump sum payment taxation anticipated under imminent legislation, subsequent pension rates will necessarily be lower. Hence the notion of benefit is to my mind spurious. Financial prospects do not encourage recruitment or long service within the forces, nor do the conditions themselves, and that is to be regretted. Let me give the Senate an example. Although priority has been given to the construction of facilities to house jets at Tindal in the Northern Territory the planned construction of accommodation for personnel has been delayed. In fact, the accommodation facilities are inferior. It is little wonder that there is unhappiness and that there will be a spate of resignations unless these conditions improve and until the housing and welfare needs of servicemen are put in proper perspective and balance. Once the new facilities are completed and personnel are transferred to the base it will not be surprising to find a spate of resignations and early retirements. I believe that it is within the Government's hands to rectify this problem. The Government needs to get its priorities right and to look after the men as well as the equipment. I think it is unjustifiable that families should be expected to compromise their standards and tolerate a quality of life that is by no means satisfactory and, what is worse still, is deteriorating. It is hardly surprising that an impetus for unionisation has emerged because of this disgraceful disregard and neglect. Yet, receptive responsible legislation which ensured improved conditions and pay could have and should have offset the need for an association or union. The legislation should have done that but it has not. We must consider the potential repercussions of Defence Force unionisation. This Bill, if it had gone far enough and was adequate enough, should have prevented the need for members of the Defence Force to seek to band together in an association, federation or union. The fact that it has not satisfied their needs is an indictment of the neglect by the Labor Government of the defence forces of this country. Labor Party policy recognises the right of Defence Force personnel formally to belong to associations which agitate for betterment of pay and conditions. However, I think we must ponder the future repercussions which could be quite serious. The situation at the moment is not serious. Unionisation legitimises organisation and strikes and invariably could lead to other associations, for example, an attachment, liaison or association with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Hence, it would not take very much imagination to follow a scenario of events of what could happen. For example, the stance of the ACTU in relation to anti-nuclear policies could, in a few years, manifest itself in strike action by Defence Force personnel over the servicing of nuclear powered vessels. I know that there are provisions to stop this sort of thing from happening. But unnecessary tensions will be created within the forces, between the chiefs and personnel and within government. Whether the strikes are potential or actual the Government and the Defence Force establishment are both in a new vulnerable position. This matter is serious because unionisation provides the possibility for embarrassing both Government and the defence establishment in an international context. Therefore, externally we have legislation that is delayed and inadequate. We also have demoralisation and poor conditions. The problems that beset the forces and which prompted unionisation remain. The Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal has yet to prove its capability as any incentive to strike or take action has not diminished. The possible outcomes for Australia's Defence Force stability and credibility certainly do not warrant a great deal of celebration. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition noting the failure of the Government. . . . to keep its promises to the men and women of the Defence Forces on taxation of lump sum superannuation payments, and for its attack on the ability of defence personnel to accumulate capital to provide for their retirement. When the Labor Party came into government one of its first attacks was on Defence Force personnel, because they are the very people in society who are likely to retire with lump sums. The nature of their occupation in many cases demands early retirement. Therefore, defence personnel, perhaps more than any other group in society, are victimised by this Labor Government because of its attitude to lump sum payments. It will deny them the opportunity to pay off the mortgage back home in Melbourne or Sydney or wherever the wife might be. It will deny them the opportunity to go into business and to make a second start. In other words, this Labor Government wants to bring everybody down, to socialise them to a common denominator until everybody is in receipt of a government pensions. We must say that the Democrats' fore- shadowed amendment is pretty much a nonsense because it is contradictory. No government is going to commit forces overseas unless a real emergency exists. So for all practical purposes paragraph (3) of the Democrats' proposed amendment would override paragraph (2). This contribution of the Democrats is naive and living in fantasyland. It demonstrates an unreal commitment of the Democrats to proper protection and defence of this country because it could lead to the intolerable situation of holding back, at a strategic and critical time, the ability of our forces to strike back, thus causing unnecessary loss of life within the defence forces because of their having to wait for this Parliament to deliberate and make a decision on the matter when it might not be able to get the full facts. Not only would it put in jeopardy the lives of members of the defence forces, but also it would put at risk the civilian population of Australia. This is an intolerable situation. To realise that one only has to look at the endless range of possibilities of attack on some of our defence establishments. Would they retaliate? Would they turn the other cheek? Or would they just get wiped out waiting for a decision to be made by the Parliament, or waiting for the recall of Parliament if an attack should happen over Christmas time? When is an enemy going to strike? The attack on Pearl Harbour happened on a Sunday. If anybody is to attack Australia it is likely to be over the New Year period when the Parliament is not sitting. The Democrats' foreshadowed amendment is impractical. It is not in the interests of the defence forces or the interests of Australia. I certainly will not be supporting it. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.53) —Although the terms of this legislation deal rather narrowly with terms and conditions and related personnel matters, the debate at various stages has ranged rather far and wide as a result of some latitude granted by the Chair, and quite a number of very rude things have been said about the Labor Party's general defence policy. Accordingly, I cannot let the debate simply subside back into a discussion purely about personnel matters without at least briefly demolishing some of the contentions that have been advanced by speakers on the other side. The reality of the matter is that defence self-reliance is the central objective of Labor's defence policy and it is that objective that governs our approach to procurement , defence industry and force structure. The Hawke Labor Government has been obliged to develop this policy against the background of the previous Government 's total failure to address and correct a massive backlog in the forward procurement program, which is at the heart of course of any viable defence policy in this country. The Fraser Government in 1976 had a defence program for the next five years. By the end of that five years, however, decisions worth some $3,000m had been deferred. The Hawke Labor Government has had to pick up the pieces and is now heavily committed to equipment expenditure which will modernise the defence forces. Some of the more serious deferrals of the Fraser Administration, which have created such difficulties as there are within our defence structure at the moment were these: The first squadron in service of the FA18 tactical fighter aircraft was delayed by four years to 1986-87. The modernisation of HMAS Swan and HMAS Torrens was deferred for four years. The 105mm Howitzer was deferred for six years. The 155mm Howitzer was deferred for three years. The very low level air defence missiles were deferred for six years . The Australian frigate program was deferred for three years. (Quorum formed) I was retailing, when I was so rudely interrupted, the sad record of neglect by the Fraser Administration of the needs of the defence forces of this country, which took its most visible form in an endless series of deferrals of major equipment procurements. I said that the very low level air defence missiles were deferred for six years and the Australian frigate project was deferred for three years. The fleet underway replenishment ship was deferred for six years. That completes that very long list. It is in contrast to this record of neglect that the Hawke Labor Government has dramatically improved expenditure on defence facilities and equipment. For the second year running this Government has considerably increased expenditure on defence. In its first Budget defence under Labor received a real increase of 4.1 per cent. This year the Government boosted defence spending in real growth terms by 3.3 per cent. This contrasts sharply and devastatingly with the 2.5 per cent average under the Fraser Administration. Senator Chaney —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. It appears to me that the Attorney-General is indulging in debate which is a long way short of the subject matter of this Bill. The Attorney-General has been known to nit pick in this place about relevance. I would like you to draw his attention to the scope of the Bill and bring him back to it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Hamer) —Order! There is a previous ruling by the President that the scope of the Bill covered the performance of the defence forces and Opposition speakers have covered that; so the Attorney-General is entitled to reply. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution. It is one that I made myself in almost precisely the same terms at an earlier stage this evening when his own cast were on their feet embarking on an extravagant series of rude and wholly unsubstantiated allegations about the state of the nation's defences. Let me conclude by saying that these rises were given at a time of severe budgetary constraint when the legacy of the $9.6 billion deficit of the Fraser Government curtailed many of our more ambitious programs. This is tangible proof of the Hawke Labor Government's commitment to maintaining a viable Defence Force to ensure Australia's security and I reject out of hand claims to the contrary that have been made by the doomsayers and electoral beater-ups on the other side of the chamber. Let me return to the more immediate substance of this legislation. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order. Could the Attorney-General refer to correct deficits when he is speaking in the debate? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is a matter for debate; it is not a point of order. Senator GARETH EVANS —The points of order are getting even less articulate and coherent as the evening wears on, which is not surprising, given the general state of morale on the other side of the chamber. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The Attorney- General should carry on with his speech. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that, Mr Deputy President. Let me return to the terms of this legislation in respect of which there have been two major matters raised by way of a second reading amendment and a foreshadowed Committee stage amendment. Let me deal with each of them in turn and in terms that will not require me, I believe, to repeat the points in the Committee stage of the debate. The first matter that has attracted attention in the form of an Opposition second reading amendment concerns the lump sum termination tax that is to be payable in respect of Defence Force benefits. The basic situation, of course, under the general law is that a lump sum paid on severance of employment attracts tax at the rate of 30c in the dollar, but if it is received at the age of 55 or more, the tax involves a payment of only 15c on the first $50,000 so received. (Quorum formed) Mr Deputy President, there are certain signs that people in this place are going stir crazy at the moment and not least the Leader of the Opposition, whose behaviour in calling quorums is childish in the extreme . Senator Chipp —You have had a day's holiday in Melbourne. Senator GARETH EVANS —A day's holiday. I have been in Tasmania and that is no holiday. The lower 15 per cent rate of tax is intended to produce a more even- handed tax outcome between those settling into permanent retirement with the help of a superannuation pension and those doing so with a lump sum benefit. It is in relation to this policy-that is the one of general application rather than as it specifically refers to the defence forces-that the Government decided that the retiring age of 55 from which the 15 per cent rate is to apply is a fair and broad base on which permanent retirement could be considered to occur. This age also provides a practical administrative mechanism to overcome the potential of double benefits. It is further the case that it is a feature and rationale of the general scheme that persons retiring before this age could be expected to re-enter the work force and receive a second lump sum payment on later retirement. The Government has not wanted a situation whereby a person can receive a lump sum before age 55 taxed at the lower rate and then a further lump sum after that age also taxed at the lower rate. These principles are of general application and they do not permit exemption or special treatment for particular sections of the community who might terminate employment before age 55. These people will have access, though, to the 15 per cent rate if they put their lump sum into an approved deposit fund until age 55. As to the special circumstances of the Defence Force in relation to the application of these principles which have been the subject of attention from the Opposition tonight, let me say this: The Government has recognised the special nature of Defence Force life and the need to provide a suitable remuneration package on discharge. We therefore propose to introduce arrangements for increased commutation of pension to offset the effect on Defence Force personnel of the new lump sum termination of employment tax. In considering the treatment of Defence Force personnel under the new tax arrangements, the Government took account of the Jess Committee conclusions on the need for people leaving the Defence Force to have a capital lump sum. The Government decided, therefore, to amend the commutation arrangements for Service personnel to ensure that, on retirement, they will receive approximately the same lump sum payments after the deduction of the new tax as they would have received under the previous tax arrangements. The Bill incorporates appropriate amendments to the commutation provisions to this effect. I emphasise that this concession has not been made available to any other sector of the community. Persons exiting from other forms of employment before age 55 with a pre-tax lump sum payment similar to that of a Defence Force member will receive up to 30 per cent less in that lump sum payment after tax when the new tax arrangements are fully operative. There will be some reductions in residual pensions. This will be minimal in the early years, increasing in 20 years time but, even then, to no more than 6 per cent in the extreme cases. By that time, however, the additional one year of commutation as proposed in the Bill will be available and, if invested, for example, could return in excess of the reduced pension. Senator Walters —That is unduly harsh. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is not unduly harsh if the honourable senator had listened to the point I have just made. If a person so adjusts his financial affairs in the way that a rational person might when confronted with this system , it is not necessarily going to be harsh in any sense at all, let alone unduly harsh. The Opposition's proposal, which is to reduce from age 55 to 45 the age at which the 15 per cent tax will apply to Service personnel would have very little effect. I think in many cases this is the bottom line, despite all the huff and puff we have heard from the other side, as more than 85 per cent of members exit from the Defence Force either without commutation entitlement or before reaching the age of 45. So even if the age were lowered to 45 it would not affect the vast majority of defence personnel other than officers. The Opposition is essentially here embarked upon a cosmetic enterprise. The other point, of course, is that lowering the age to 45 at which the 15 per cent tax will apply would undermine the principle that the lower tax is to be applied to persons not retiring at an early stage of their working lives but rather persons settling into permanent retirement. The new commutation proposals in the Bill preserve the principles underlying the new tax and ensure their even -handed application to all groups but, at the same time, recognise the special needs of members of the Defence Force. That is the basis by which the Commonwealth Government defends the course of action that has been taken. As to the suggestion that there has been some breach of promise involved in all this, I make the point that the Government has made no promises to the Defence Force on the taxation of lump sums except to amend the amount available to commutation which this Bill is doing. In talking about promises, the motion before the Chair is obviously referring to a promise that was made by the Minister by Defence, Mr Scholes, at the last election that there would be no change to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Fund under Labor. Mr Scholes has repeatedly drawn the distinction, which is a real and legitimate one , between the scheme itself and the tax payable upon its operation. It is on that point that I strongly resist and rebut the suggestion that there has been anything in the nature of a broken promise of the kind that is referred to in this amendment. The remaining matter which attracted debate on this occasion was the hoary old favourite of the Australian Democrats about overseas service for Australian troops. I want to make it clear from the outset that there are a great many things said by Senator Mason about Australia's participation in the Vietnam war with which the Labor Party wholly and totally agreed. But the matter with which we are dealing is the role to be played by the Parliament in making these sorts of decisions. In the course of the debate Senator Mason was obliged to acknowledge that, given the composition of the Parliament as it existed in the Senate in the mid 1960s, it would not have made a hap'orth of difference to Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war had this amendment been in force. It does depend on the vagaries of the composition of the Parliament from time to time and that, indeed, is one of the problems about building in a requirement of reference to the Parliament before Australian troops are committed overseas. Many things could be said about the larger constitutional principles involved here and about the different roles under the traditional Westminster system of the Executive as distinct from the legislature. I put those sorts of considerations, however, to one side and focus simply for the purposes of this debate on the acute practical difficulties which would be involved were there to be an acceptance of the terms of the Democrats' amendment. The reality is that the amendment proposed by Senator Mason would create severe practical difficulties for the Defence Force activities both in peacetime and wartime, and practical difficulties that are of a kind that I think should be appreciated by Senator Mason. They are not simply beat-ups by way of unjustified and unjustifiable defence of some sort of procedural status quo. These are real problems and problems of a kind that even Senator Townley, who is trying to interject, would be able to appreciate the force of. The amendment proposed to the Bill could severely constrain the operational effectiveness of the Defence Force in such routine circumstances as the hot pursuit in the Australian fishing zone beyond territorial limits. It would also complicate arrangements for the employment of Defence Force personnel in other countries under the Defence co-operation program and in other instances where the Defence Force may be involved in providing humanitarian or disaster relief assistance. These circumstances are not covered by the exceptions in the amendment foreshadowed tonight by Senator Mason. While no doubt his list of exemptions could be expanded and further amended, it would be difficult to arrive at a list which is both comprehensive and clear in its coverage of routine peacetime activities. As far as periods of actual or threatened hostilities are concerned, the amendment would preclude purely defensive activities such as the protection of Australian shipping. The amendment also calls into doubt certain strategic options, notably pre-emptive or deterrent deployments in the period of tension leading to a possible conflict prior to public knowledge of the existence of an emergency. It is unlikely, in the event of hostilities, that the military defence of Australia and its territories would be limited to Australian forces serving within Australian territory or territorial waters. Our ships and aircraft could be expected to operate outside Australian sea and air space. The amendments would allow for this only after either resolution by either House of the Parliament or proclamation by the Governor-General. An exercise like Kangaroo 83 demonstrated, however, that it is difficult, even after hostilities have begun, to decide in advance the limits of required deployments. In practical terms that responsibility lies-and it has to lie-with the Government's management of the defence emergency. It would normally be expected that the government of the day would publicise its actions. There are, however, circumstances in which deterrence would not be served by the release of information which may be detrimental to the security of the forces deployed. Moreover, the required declaration of emergency before a deployment took place may be regarded as provocative in the particular defence situation which there arises. There are many more points of that kind which could be made, but it is not the time, given the circumstances in which we are debating this matter, to pursue it to its ultimate limits. What I have said, I believe, is sufficient for the rejection of this motion, both in its general form in the second reading stage and its more detailed form in which it will be moved in the Committee stage of this debate, on which I do not propose to speak if I can possibly help it. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Hamer's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Baume, Peter Jessop, D. S. Boswell, R. L. D. Lewis, A. W. R. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Harradine, B. Withers, R. G. Button, J. N. Grimes, D. J. Childs, B. K. Hearn, J. M. Chipp, D. L. Jones, G. N. Coates, J. McClelland, DouglasColeman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Martin, K. J. Walsh, P. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Sibraa, K. W. Teague, B. C. McIntosh, G. D. Kilgariff, B. F. Foreman, D. J. Lajovic, M. E. Bolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Haines, J. Messner, A. J. Macklin, M. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.19) —I move: At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that Australian troops should not be sent overseas in a war or in a peace-keeping role without the consent of both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament'. Question resolved in the negative. Senator Mason —I ask that the names of the three Australian Democrats-Senator Chipp, Senator Jack Evans and me-be recorded in the Journals of the Senate as voting for the amendment. The PRESIDENT —That will be done. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 15A. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(10.20) —I move: Page 5, after clause 15, insert the following new clause: '15A. Section 50C of the Defence Act 1903 is repealed and the following section substituted: '50C. (1) Members of the Defence Force may be required to serve within the territorial limits of Australia. '(2) Subject to sub-section (3), members of the Defence Force may not be required to serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia except in accordance with a resolution agreed to by each House of the Parliament authorising the service. '(3) The Governor-General may by proclamation declare that an emergency exists requiring the service beyond the territorial limits of Australia of members of the Defence Force, and such service may be required in accordance with such a proclamation. '(4) If the Parliament is not in session when a proclamation under sub-section (3) is made, it shall be summoned to meet within 2 days after the making of the proclamation. '(5) If the Parliament is in session when a proclamation under sub-section (3) is made, but either House of the Parliament is adjourned for an indefinite period of time or for a period of time which will expire more than 2 days after the making of the proclamation, the Presiding Officer of that House within the meaning of the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965, or the person who is deemed to be the Presiding Officer of that House for the purpose of that Act, shall summon that House to meet within 2 days after the making of the proclamation, notwithstanding anything contained in the resolution of adjournment of that House. '(6) A proclamation made under sub-section (3) shall cease to have effect on the day next succeeding the day on which the Parliament next meets after the making of the proclamation. '(7) For the purpose of this section, service beyond the territorial limits of Australia does not include service by members of the Defence Force- (a) pursuant to their temporary attachment as provided by section 116B; (b) as part of an Australian diplomatic or consular mission; (c) on an Australian vessel or aircraft not engaged in hostilities or in operations during which hostilities are likely to occur; (d) for the purpose of their education or training; or (e) for purposes related to the procurement of equipment or stores.''.'. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.21) —The reasons for the Government's rejection of the amendment were made clear in the second reading debate. Amendment negatived. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.22) —The Opposition supports this measure. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.23) —The Government is indebted to the Opposition for its support of this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.24) —The Opposition will support the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984 which seeks to do a number of things. It establishes around the Bass Strait petroleum production facilities an area to be avoided by unauthorised Australian ships over 2,000 tonnes and gives the Commonwealth power to manipulate the amount of oil uplifted from oil pools and the amount of revenue accruing to the Government from oil production by transferring the power to determine the rate of uplift from oil fields from State control to joint Commonwealth State control and by changing the areas subject to control to oil pools rather than to permit areas. In dealing with this Bill we have been under some difficulty, because when it was introduced into the House of Representatives it was apparent that it required some amendment. We faced the difficulty that it would arrive in the Senate after the House of Representatives had risen, and we therefore had to deal with the matter and conduct the Senate review of the legislation before it had arrived at this place. Until the Government agreed to an amendment in the House of Representatives, the Bill explicitly stated that Commonwealth revenue considerations would be the stated criteria for determining the amount of oil to be uplifted from each pool during any period, although other criteria could be taken into account. The Government had earlier totally rejected a suggested amendment by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, the major industry body which is concerned, whose amendment was designed to ensure that government directions as to the amount of uplift of oil from a field should be consistent with good oilfield practices; that is, that the Government would not be able to specify a level of production that would damage a field and reduce the amount of oil able to be recovered from the field. The amount of uplift has always been decided by State governments on technical grounds, basically to do with good oilfield management, but had never been specified in legislation. Oil has not been allowed to be uplifted at such a rate that it might damage the oilfield structure and reduce the ultimate amount of oil to be obtained from a pool. Instead of using the industry's sensible suggestion, the Government substituted a clause stating that the Commonwealth revenue considerations be a reason for determining the amount of oil to be uplifted. The thrust of the APEA's suggestion has now been included in an amendment which the Government moved in the lower House and which is now incorporated in the legislation which is before the Senate. That follows representations from the Opposition in which we had the support of the Australian Democrats. Senator Jack Evans was of a similar view to that which the Opposition expressed. He joined with us in the representations that we made to the Government. As a result, the Government amended the legislation before it reached this place. I am aware that honourable senators do not wish to be detained at length on this matter. To summarise the actions and the attitude of the Opposition, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard my letter to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) of 1 October 1984 seeking an amendment, the Minister's letter of 3 October 1984 responding to that and suggesting a limited amendment- which was not acceptable to the Opposition or to the Australian Democrats-and a copy of that amendment, the letter of 5 October to the Minister which set out the Opposition's attitude to the amendment and which sought a further amendment, and the Minister's response of 9 October in which he agreed to make the change which is now incorporated in the legislation. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA The Senate 1 October 1984 My dear Minister, I am writing to inform you that the Opposition will be seeking to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill when it comes before the Parliament. We are concerned at the emphasis given to Commonwealth revenue considerations in the Bill, possibly at the expense of 'good oil field practices'. We support the thrust of the representations made by APEA prior to the preparation of the final draft of the Bill, and we see no reason why a paragraph such as suggested by APEA should not be included in Clause 12. Accordingly we will be moving an amendment along the lines of the amendment enclosed. If the Government indicates that it would not oppose such an amendment, I propose to have it introduced in the House of Representatives when the Bill is debated this week to ensure that the Bill is passed through all its stages prior to the expected premature rising of the House. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Democrat spokesman, Senator Jack Evans, for his information. Yours sincerely, FRED CHANEY Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh,Minister for Resources and Energy,Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 3 October 1984 Senator the Hon. F. M. ChaneySenator for Western AustraliaParliament HouseCanberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Chaney Thank you for your letter of 1 October 1984 concerning the Opposition's intention to seek an amendment to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984. Following representations, the Government has given further consideration to the provisions of the proposed sub-section 58 (5) as set out in clause 12 of the Bill and has decided to move an amendment in the Committee stages. The amendment will ensure that, for whatever reasons a direction on rates of petroleum recovery is being considered, good oil-field practice must be taken into account . At the same time the provisions of the sub-section ensure that there is no limitation on the matters which may be taken into account when a direction is being considered (eg national interest considerations would be important in the event of a liquid fuels emergency). The re-cast sub-section (5) proposed to be introduced is attached. I trust that this amendment will satisfy the requirements of the Opposition. Yours sincerely PETER WALSH ENCL DRAFT-IN-CONFIDENCE The draft is supplied in confidence. It should be given appropriate protection and should not be copied. If necessary, further copies will be supplied by Parliamentary Counsel. 1983-84 THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 (Amendment to be moved on behalf of the Government) Clause 12, page 3, lines 35 to 39, omit proposed sub-section (5), insert the following sub-section: '' '(5) In determining whether to give a direction under sub-section (3) or (4) , the Joint Authority- (a) shall take into account matters relating to good oil-field practice; and (b) may take into account matters relating to the effects on Commonwealth revenue of the proposed direction, but nothing in this sub-section shall be taken as limiting the matters that may be taken into account by the Joint Authority in determining whether to give a direction under sub-section (3) or (4).'.''. PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA-THE SENATE My Dear Minister I wrote to you earlier this week giving notice of the proposed amendment to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984. Since that time there have been a number of discussions between your private office and mine about the form of the amendment. I am not satisfied that the Government proposals will achieve the objective we are seeking namely 'good oilfield practices' should be maintained and not overriden for short term revenue considerations. I do accept however that the Government needs to be able to override such practices in a situation of national emergency when long term matters need to be traded off against short term considerations. I suggest that the amendment be redrafted to except action taken by the Government pursuant to provisions of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. I will ask my office to discuss this matter with your office as a matter of urgency as I understand in the Government's reckless rush to an early election the Government has taken legislation through at an unconscionable rate. It might help if the Bill is put aside for a day so that we can agree on an amendment before it is discussed in the House of Representatives. Yours sincerely FRED CHANEY Senator the Hon Peter Walsh, Minister for Resources and Energy, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 9 Oct. 1984 Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney, Senator for Western Australia, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Chaney Thank you for your letter of 5 October 1984 concerning sub-section 58 (5) which is introduced under clause 12 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984. Attached is a copy of the agreed sub-section 58 (5) which the Government proposes to introduce in the House of Representatives this week. Yours sincerely PETER WALSH Senator CHANEY —I thank the Senate. Again, I wish to acknowledge that in the views that we put forward we had the support of the Australian Democrats, which gave us the potential to say that the legislation would have been amended in this place had the Government not agreed to the amendment. I mention that because I think that Senator Jack Evans was not proposing to speak on the Bill, in deference to the Senate's desire to complete the consideration of this legislation fairly quickly. The other matters which are considered in the Bill are not matters of contention as far as the Opposition is concerned. Indeed, work on ensuring that there was a greater protected area around the oilfields commenced during the life of the previous Government. It is essentially a technical matter, not a political matter. The Opposition supports the changes which have been made with respect to that. The transfer to the joint authority is, again, not a matter which the Opposition wishes to put in issue. However, I should like to express the Opposition's concern at some of the proposals which the Government has in mind with respect to changes in this area. This is, as APEA has stated, a volatile time for the industry. There are some reasonably heartening signs from the results of recent oil exploration, but we believe, along with APEA, that with the legislative framework within which the industry operates being extensively changed, with many discoveries being made, with a surplus of oil being produced but a sharp drop in our capacity to produce only a few years away, and with the pattern of exploration changing significantly, the Government needs to be more cautious in the changes which it is seeking to bring about. In particular, we are concerned about the proposal to introduce cash bidding. It appears to the Opposition that the Government, which is said to be proposing to invite tenders for new permits to explore for oil off the north-west coast of Australia later this year on the basis of a cash bidding system, is entering into uncharted waters, certainly waters for which there is no legislative basis, or is putting forward proposals for which there may be no legislative basis. If the Government intends to make cash bidding the basis of the tenders which will be made later this year, I ask it to make available the details of the system as soon as possible and to indicate the legal basis on which such changes will be made given that the necessary legislative changes have not been brought forward during this sitting of the Parliament. I am dealing in a very brief and in a sense pre-emptory way with what is a significant piece of legislation in an area of policy which is very important to Australia. I think it is common ground in this place that the maintenance of a high level of self-sufficiency in oil in Australia is a desirable national objective. We believe that in its taxation policies and in some of its other policies the Government is not giving sufficient emphasis to the need to maintain a high level of incentive for oil exploration. But as far as the provisions of this legislation are concerned, now that the Government has picked up the particular suggestion which we pressed upon it, we would support the legislation and are prepared to see the Bill have a speedy passage. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.31 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.31) —in reply-I thank the Opposition for supporting the legislation. I accept the suggestions by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney. We accept that there are difficulties in this area. I thank him for supporting the legislation. I urge the Senate to support the legislation as suggested. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.33) —The Opposition supports the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill which provides that the Commonwealth, in lieu of the payment of what had been an annual payment by way of compensation to facilitate a passenger service to Tasmania, will now make a lump sum payment in exchange for the State of Tasmania assuming the Commonwealth's responsibility in the provision of that passenger ferry service between Victoria and Tasmania. I am very conscious of the fact that we have very little time in which to deal with this matter, because of the guillotine, but I think it is appropriate to go over some of the history. History shows that there has been a problem in relation to the Bass Strait passenger service for many years. The first committee ever conducted by the Senate, in 1901, was in relation to Bass Strait shipping. Since then there have been a number of inquiries by a variety of bodies. One of those was an inquiry by a Senate committee which reported in 1970. That committee identified the disability suffered by Tasmania as a result of the fact that shipping had become far more expensive as a means of transport than road and rail. Tasmania suffered a significant disability. As a result of the recommendations of that Committee the McMahon Government referred the matter of that disability and the ascertainment of its extent to the Bureau of Transport Economics. The Bureau of Transport Economics eventually reported. It was quite clear that Commonwealth Government policies in relation to shipbuilding and the preservation of shipbuilding capacity in Australian industry and which therefore affected the interests of employees in places such as Whyalla, Newcastle and other places where shipbuilding, steel production, et cetera is undertaken, required Tasmania to have probably the most expensive ships anywhere in the world. Commonwealth Government policy also applied to the maritime unions and the conditions of service applying to the coastal trade of Australia. The conditions of manning in regard to the coastal trade of Australia are probably the most generous in the world and the most expensive for those operating a shipping service. Again, they were a matter of Commonwealth Government policy. The Commonwealth Government, as a deliberate decision, with a view to ensuring the free flow of exports and imports, decided to make conditions in relation to the introduction of containerisation and other aspects of the waterfront very much more beneficial than they had previously been for waterfront workers. The net result was that, due to three Government policies, Tasmania, the island State, depended for almost the totality of its transport upon probably the most expensive ships, expensive seamen and expensive waterfronts in the world. It is an established fact that it is cheaper to ship many goods from Tasmania to Singapore than to ship them from Tasmania to Melbourne. Findings of the Bureau of Transport Economics then led to the further investigation of a recommendation of the Senate Committee for the introduction of a freight equalisation scheme. That inquiry resulted in the introduction of a freight equalisation scheme which covered quite a significant aspect of the transport of goods. However, it did nothing to assist the high cost of transport of passengers. The transport of passengers by sea is an important aspect of Tasmania's industrial growth and economic well-being as well as being a matter of social importance to Tasmania. Many people for various reasons do not wish to fly. Others prefer to come to or leave Tasmania as tourists, taking with them their own vehicles to use for the purposes of their period away. They need the services of a passenger vessel. In regard to the development of the tourist industry, there has been limited capacity. Ships which have been engaged on the Bass Strait run in recent times have had available a lesser number of passenger places. The Empress of Australia , which undertakes three trips per week, has a capacity of 444 places. That ship also carries some freight. In 1974, recognising all of these factors, the then Opposition first enunciated clearly the principle which has been enunciated again in the transport policy issued today by the Liberal and National Party coalition. I want to read the last words of that because they are important. They are a repeat of the sorts of words used in 1974. They are: The Coalition will await the report of the Interstate Commission on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme before finalising its attitude to this scheme. In the meantime, the Coalition confirms its commitment to the underlying principles of the scheme and recognises that as a State of the Commonwealth, Tasmania is entitled to have Bass Strait regarded as part of the National Highway, and treated as such for policy purposes. Senator Coates —Tell us about selling off the ANL. Senator PETER RAE —That is the important part of the undertaking which is given, which is to regard Bass Strait as part of the national highway and to have it treated as such for policy purposes. I fail to see the relevance of Senator Coates's interjection asking me to tell him about selling off the Australian National Line. The continuation or otherwise of the ANL's services to Tasmania is of little relevance to the subject matter of this Bill, which is the provision by the Commonwealth of an amount of just under $26m to enable the State Government of Tasmania to take over responsibility, including the risk of conducting a passenger service which will not be conducted by the ANL and which will be for a period of at least 10 years. What we have is an agreement which has been entered into between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania for the provision of what amounts to the cost of purchase and refit of a vessel called the Nils Holgersson which has been the result of an inquiry by a combined Commonwealth Government, State Government and ANL committee of investigation and regarded as suitable for the Bass Strait service. It will be a very much larger ship than has operated on the Bass Strait service, having a passenger capacity of over 900. This will mean that the room for growth in the tourist industry as far as Tasmania is concerned will be very significantly enhanced above that which it would otherwise have been had we continued to have only the Empress of Australia. There is a possibility that the ANL, whether it is privately owned of publicly owned, will continue to operate the Empress of Australia also. It has indicated that it is assessing the prospects of, for at least part of the year, continuing to operate the Empress of Australia, which is now written down in value to a very significant extent and could be operated not as a cabin type passenger ship but rather as a no frills passenger ship with aircraft type seats and carrying a larger number of people at a lower price. That could be in competition with the Nils Holgersson, whatever that ship may become known as eventually. There is certainly a need for a passenger service to Tasmania. A further committee to which I wish to refer is the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania which recently reported and comprised senators from both sides of the chamber. It unanimously reported on the need for the continuation of the passenger service but accepted the recommendations of yet another inquiry which had been conducted in relation to Tasmanian shipping. I refer to a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics, which said: However, the Bureau's investigation indicates that relatively smaller vessels are likely to provide superior financial results than those proposed by Commissioner Nimmo. That is referring to the recommendations of the Nimmo Commission of Inquiry into Transport to and from Tasmania. The inquiry which the Committee undertook for a period of a year made recommendations. Those recommendations are known to the Senate. I only hope we can conclude this satisfactorily without any over- tonnaging on Bass Strait, which appears to be the only risk which is being run at the moment. The Opposition supports the Bill. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(10.45) —As Senator Peter Rae mentioned, the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984 marks the end of the prime involvement of the Australian National Line in the Bass Strait sea passenger services, which is a bit of a sad point to come to. In a way I would prefer the national statutory authority to continue with this responsibility but the Tasmanian Government and many Tasmanian people wanted control and responsibility and that is what this Bill gives. The unfortunate thing is that the State government at the moment looks as though it does not want the ferry or the grant . I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an extract from the Advocate of 19 October reporting Mr Groom, the State Transport Minister, as indicating that the ferry may not be the best for the service. Leave granted. The report read as follows- FERRY 'MAY NOT BE BEST FOR SERVICE' Hobart-The Nils Holgersson might not be the best ship available for the service it would be required to provide, the Minister for Transport (Mr Groom) said yesterday. Mr Groom said the Nils Holgersson had been chosen from a short list of vessels by a committee representing the State Government and A.N.L. But the choice might have been different if the Government had known at the time it was to run the service and bear any financial loss it incurred. Mr Groom said this was not to indicate that the Nils Holgersson would not prove suitable, but if the State had known how it was to be responsible for the new service it might have looked for a vessel with different features-such as a greater freight capacity. He repeated a statement made in Parliament on Wednesday that Tasmania was given no option by the Federal Government and had to accept the Nils Holgersson as the replacement for the Empress of Australia. That statement drew an angry response from the Opposition Leader (Mr Wriedt), who said yesterday that the State Government and the A.N.L. had jointly chosen the Nils Holgersson as the best available vessel for the Bass Strait run. Mr Wriedt said it was false for Mr Groom to claim that the Commonwealth forced the State Government to accept the Nils Holgersson, as the ship had been chosen by Transport Tasmania and the A.N.L. Mr Groom said the choice of vessel had been made before the Federal Government announced that Tasmania would have to accept responsibility for the Bass Strait service. Originally, the Government had no intention of running the service, nor did it expect to be required to meet any losses the ferry might incur. He said it was only when he met the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Morris) on May 4 that it became clear that the Commonwealth intended to give Tasmania a $26m grant and require it to accept responsibility for the service. ''That's the key point. Until May 4, the Government never had any thought of operating the ferry or accepting financial responsibility for its operation,'' Mr Groom said. Mr Wriedt also accused the Government of negotiating with Australian Newsprint Mills to win the company's shipping business away from Union Bulkships and the port of Hobart. He claimed Mr Groom had negotiated with A.N.M. in the hope of winning the contract for shipping newsprint on the Nils Holgersson through the port of Devonport. Mr Wriedt said this would threaten the viability of both the Union Bulkships' service and the port of Hobart. Senator COATES —As far as I am concerned this raises great problems. The State Minister certainly seems to be trying to distance himself from the ship and the whole concept of Tasmania taking the service over. The facts are: The State Government was part of the working party which chose the Nils Holgersson from a list of six ships. The State Government endorsed the working party report and sent it to the Commonwealth. The State Government agreed to the idea of taking over operational responsibility for the service. The State Government did not have to; it was not obliged to, as Mr Groom is now trying to suggest. The State Government did. It happily accepted the offer from this Government of $26m and the responsibility of running this service without any reservation. It is quite wrong for Mr Groom to say that the ship was foisted on the Tasmanian Government. The Government was involved from the very beginning. The Federal Government has acted honourably throughout. The Minister for Transport, Mr Peter Morris, deserves congratulations for his thorough work on this and other transport issues affecting Tasmania and his continuing interest in the transport problems of the State. This whole grant emphasises the commitment of the Australian Labor Party to Tasmania and its communications with the rest of the nation. It was the 1972-75 Labor Government which began the subsidy out of the Budget to the ANL's Bass Strait service. It was that Labor Government which proposed the policy and set in train the inquiry which resulted in the freight equalisation scheme. It was Labor which proposed and began the program of transferring to Tasmania appropriate Federal Government agencies so as to meet some of the shortfall in Commonwealth Government employment in Tasmania. It was Labor which took over the ailing Tasmanian railway network. It was Labor which set up the Inter-State Commission. It is now the Labor Government which is providing a major contribution of $26m to allow Tasmania to take over the crucially important Bass Strait service. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 October, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.49) —The Opposition does not oppose the Passports Amendment Bill and the Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill and wishes them a speedy passage at this stage of the sittings of the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.49) —The Government is indebted to the Opposition for its support of these measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.52) —While I realise that we have had the wrong crown on our passport in the past, will the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) replace that crown with the correct crown and so give back to the people of Australia the passport that they are used to handling? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.53) —I will draw the honourable senator's question to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). However, my recollection is that putting any crown above the coat of arms in the position it was previously located, which appealed so much to Senator Walters and those of her ilk, is an effrontery of the highest order to the ancient tenets of heraldry and truth, justice and the English way in these matters. As a result, it would not be appropriate to put another crown there-even one that is not the crown of St Edward. However, I will draw Senator Walters's representation in this matter to the attention of the Minister and see what might be able to be done that would be consistent with proper principles in this matter. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 3 October 1984, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.54) —Mr Deputy President, these Bills put into effect the Government's Budget proposals in the business and personal tax area in the matter of income equalisation for primary producers. They also provide for certain adjustments of interest payments. Some of this legislation was introduced in an earlier session of the Parliament but was rejected by the Opposition. We note that the Government has persisted with the legislation, and the Bills do represent the Government's policy with regard to income equalisation. It will be and is understood by primary industry organisations and primary industry producers themselves that income equalisation deposits have become nothing but an investment with doubtful benefit. They are not representative of our policy, but I think our policy is known. It has been described in the primary industry policy released by this coalition. It will be remembered that it was a previous coalition Government which introduced income equalisation deposits. Our commitment is that on return to government we will re-establish income equalisation deposits as an effective means of equalising variable incomes with tax being paid in the year of withdrawal only. We will apply appropriate safeguards to prevent any anomalies or abuse. We also make the commitment to continue with tax averaging of incomes. As I have said, income equalisation deposits are not our policy, but at this stage, in view of the Government's persistence with them on a second occasion, we will not impede passage of the legislation Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.56) —Once again, if I am allowed to close the debate on this occasion, I thank Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle for her contribution to this debate and for the Opposition's support or, on this occasion, non-opposition, to these measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 24 August. In Committee Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the Committee approves the statement, for the year 1983-84, of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto, pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901. Resolution reported; report adopted. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.59) —I table the annual report of the Steel Industry Authority for the year ended 30 June 1984, pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BUTTON —Unfortunately, only limited copies of the report are available from the Senate Records Office. I understand that final copies will be printed during the week and will be made available to all honourable senators and members as soon as possible. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate at its rising adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable due to illness or other cause, by the Deputy President, and that the day and/or hour of the meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.02) —I move: At end of motion, add: 'Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. 'For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australia Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. 'Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. 'In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution'. This amendment provides the opportunity for an absolute majority of senators to recall the Senate. It adds that arrangement in a form which has been accepted in this place as common for nearly 10 years. I should make it clear that the motion would not give any single Opposition group in the Senate the power to recall the Senate. An absolute majority could be obtained only by a combination of the official Opposition, that is the Liberal and National parties, and the Australian Democrats. Senator Chipp —Or the Government and the Democrats. Senator CHANEY —The Government has that power anyway under the motion. We are seeking to ensure that any grouping of senators who comprise an absolute majority would have that power. For the purpose of convenience, it provides that the Leader of the Opposition may speak on behalf of those senators who are part of the official Opposition; in the same way the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats can speak for members of the Australian Democrats. There is no need for any extensive debate on this matter. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.03) —I am sorry that for once in my life I omitted to listen to everything that the Leader of the Opposition had to say, and I apologise to him. I understand the amendment , which is the usual amendment to this motion, and the Government does not oppose it. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —I seek leave to present a petition which arrived too late in this morning's mail to be presented. Leave granted. Senator ROBERTSON-I present the following petition from 158 citizens: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. We are Australians who support nuclear disarmament. 2. The world is closer to nuclear war than at any time since World War II. This ultimate catastrophe can and must be avoided by ordinary people raising their voices and taking action against the threat of nuclear destruction. 3. We identify with the massive worldwide movement for a nuclear-free future- for a 'freeze' on all nuclear weapons testing, production and deployment, as an immediate first step towards complete disarmament. 4. Australians are not remote from nuclear danger-we are very much involved and threatened. 5. We can contribute to the growing global movement for a peaceful world by opposing Australian involvement in activities and strategies likely to lead to a nuclear holocaust. To achieve this, we call on the Australian Government to: Support actively the United Nations' World Disarmament Campaign and to commit itself never to introduce, or allow to be introduced, nuclear weapons into Australia. Undertake not to update or expand existing nuclear related foreign military installations on Australian territory nor permit the establishment of any new ones. Remove all nuclear related military installations since these contribute to the ability to conduct nuclear attacks and are likely targets in case of war. End all port-of-call and landing rights arrangements granted to foreign nuclear forces, including nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessels and aircraft. Support the establishment of nuclear-free zones in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, including the banning of all nuclear testing and waste dumping. End the mining and export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —It is with some personal feeling of regret that I inform the Senate of the impending resignation of Senator Martin from the Senate. As honourable senators will be aware, Senator Martin seeks to go to what might be regarded as greener pastures by moving from this chamber to another place. She has been a senator for Queensland since 1974. I could provide a great amount of detail concerning Senator Martin's distinguished service in the Senate, particularly with regard to her work associated with Senate committees. Suffice it to say, however, that her record has been extensive, well known and greatly appreciated by all senators on both sides of the House. In my term both as a senator and as the President of the Senate Senator Martin has served the State of Queensland with great credit to herself. We have all appreciated her capacity to get the kernel of any issue and to follow her line of argument through with determination and persistency. I might add that Senator Martin, as the occasion has required, has also demonstrated an ability to admonish any senator who in her opinion appeared to be stepping out of line. Fortunately, I have not had the misfortune to be on the receiving end of such a response but I well remember one occasion during consideration of the appropriations of one department when that department and its officers experienced the expression of that capacity. I cannot understand why she seeks the greener pastures, but we know that if she is successful in the forthcoming election the experience and parliamentary expertise she has gained in the Senate will stand her in good stead in another place. We all thank her for her services to the Senate and to the State of Queensland. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr President, I wish to support you in the remarks that you have just made about my colleague Senator Martin. I do not think this is really the time for the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to show the levity that he is showing, given that Senator Martin has succeeded where both he and I have failed. As to your inability to understand why anyone would wish to escape to greener pastures, perhaps he and I can explain it to you after we have adjourned this evening. I can only say that in my own case failure has been a relatively consoling matter, but I congratulate Senator Martin on the fact that she has set out to win the seat of Moncrieff and I wish her well. Mr President, I am sure that you, too, wish her well and that the whole of the Opposition and the Government do too. I was wondering what I should say about Senator Martin, who entered the Senate at the same time as I did and, indeed, as Senator Button did, in May 1974. In one sense and in one sense only I am glad she is leaving because it made me turn back to her maiden speech. That took me to the next speech, which was made by Senator Button, and then to the next speech, which was made by me. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of them, but there was one short passage in Senator Martin's maiden speech which reminded me of the qualities that I think she has shown in this place. She was talking about Australia. She talked about an independence of spirit and the fact that the Australian was a tolerant person who wanted to see social justice. These were the days before we were too concerned about sexist language. She said: 'He has a good strong social conscience'. I think Senator Martin has shown considerable independence of spirit in this place. I think she has shown tolerance in the best sense, a desire to see social justice and, for her own part, a strong social conscience. I was interested to see how profoundly moved Senator Button was by Senator Martin's maiden speech. He was so moved that he became incoherent. He said something which I thought I would ask the Senate to explain to me. Senator Button was so moved by Senator Martin's initial contribution that he referred to her as the Mona Lisa. He said: I begin by congratulating Senator Martin on her maiden speech. For nine or ten weeks she has adorned this chamber-I hope she will understand what I am trying to say-like the Mona Lisa, smiling at everybody and saying little. Tonight she said something. Like the Mona Lisa, if one looks at that picture, it has been a pretty interesting and intellectual contribution to the debate. I congratulate her on that. I can only say to Senator Button that I hope she understood what he was saying; I still do not. Perhaps I should in fairness to Senator Button record that she left me in some confusion also. I started off by saying that I rose with trepidation to clamber over the hurdle that had been effortlessly soared by Senator Martin less than half an hour before. In fact, Senator Martin has been a very good member of the Liberal Party in this place. She has been a very considerable contributor to debate. I am glad that over these recent weeks of the Senate sittings she has had a number of opportunities to display the skills that she has used to such good effect. I would like, on behalf of the Opposition, to thank her for her contribution to the Liberal Party, both in government and in opposition, and, of course, to wish her well in her foray for the lower House. We await with confidence her return and expect her to turn in her senator's badge for the green badge of a member of the House of Representatives. She has, I think, brought refreshing candour to this place. She has brought a great deal of spirit, and I, for one, shall miss her contributions. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, I also wish to refer briefly to the resignation of Senator Martin and to endorse your remarks and about one third of the remarks of Senator Chaney. I think I should explain what I was trying to say in those days. If I can look at it in retrospect, even in those days I had a sense of aesthetics and the only leavening things, after the whole experience of six weeks of looking at your rotten lot over there, were Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle and Senator Martin. It was a source of relative joy, compared with the other people I had to gaze upon. Just as the Mona Lisa provides joy to some of us who are more sensitive chaps than others, so did she in those days. When somebody leaves this place or dies or something like that I think that one recalls, in a sense, the most constructive times that one has had with that person rather than the times in which one has been engaged in debating and all of that sort of stuff. I suppose I will always recall working with Senator Martin on the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which dealt with the children's television issue in Australia and also the question of the isolated children's scheme. I very much appreciated her work on that committee. When we leave politics and go to the House of Representatives and things like that, perhaps these are the things that are most remembered. She made a great contribution to the Senate in those sorts of activities as she did, of course, as a vigorous debater in this place. I would like to join in thanking her for her service to the Senate. I cannot say that I will be barracking for her on 1 December. However, I hope she has a happy and invigorating campaign, if I can put it that way, and that she remains in good health and happiness for a long time to come. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —Mr President, I could not allow the occasion to pass without adding the thanks of the Australian Democrats for the presence of Senator Martin in this place. I think all honourable senators would agree that she has been an ornament to this chamber and a source of distraction to honourable senators during long and boring debates which we have on occasions. Also I should speak of Senator Martin's other qualities. She has always been interesting to listen to when she speaks. She is a lively person who I think has that healthy predilection which is now emerging in this chamber by our ladies to take on the male sex from time to time. I might say that this is a thoroughly sexist activity but I think it is one that on the whole is to be applauded. The Australian Democrats wish Senator Martin happiness in the future. I am not quite sure whether we have an Australian Democrat standing against her. In case we have, I will have to be careful about wishing her success. However I think she will have a stimulating time wherever she is. I am sure that she will take with her the same qualities that we have enjoyed here. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I wish very briefly to endorse the various things that have been said tonight about Senator Martin. I certainly feel that we are losing someone that this Senate cannot afford to lose. We cannot afford to lose the Kathy Martin's of this world . I think it is equally regrettable that she should have chosen to go down into that more primitive area of the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, I am sure she will carry with her the capacities and behaviour that she has learnt in this august chamber. The second time I came into the Senate chamber was as a freshman along with Kathy Martin in 1974 and I have always admired her articulate capacity, her sense of humour and, indeed, her very pleasant appearance. I am sure that that has been augmented significantly since she has had the opportunity to sit between Senator Messner and myself. She has made herself appear not only as beautiful as she is but also a little more by contrast. With those few words I again endorse the things that have been said about Kathy Martin. I am certainly happy that we have all had the opportunity to know her over the years and look forward to her success in whatever she seeks to do in the future. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.16) —I generally rise on condolence motions! I simply rise now not to ask who is going to get Senator Martin's office, or to wish her a happy retirement! The PRESIDENT —After your performance today, Senator Harradine, it is not you! Senator HARRADINE —I wish Senator Martin all the best in whatever field she desires to continue her undoubted expertise as a debater and as a person who is able efficiently and effectively to promote the views that she holds. I simply join with my parliamentary colleagues in thanking her for the interesting debates she has entered into here and in wishing her all the best. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. The PRESIDENT —It is with some personal feelings of regret that I inform the Senate of the impending retirement of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Jim Roberts, who is at the table this evening. Mr Roberts has advised me and the Speaker of his intention to retire from his position on 1 January 1985. I say ' with some personal feelings of regret', because my association with Jim Roberts goes back to the early 1950s when he and I worked together as reporters in New South Wales. I am sure, for instance, that he and I will always remember a time in the 1950s when we both went to Broken Hill to cover a trial. I cannot tell the Senate whether the accused was found guilty or not guilty, but I am sure that we both now plead not guilty and we both reserve our defence! I knew him as a workmate, and I know him as a workmate and also as a senior and responsible parliamentary officer. In both areas he could not be bettered. As this will be the last occasion on which Jim Roberts will record the many pearls of wisdom uttered by honourable senators-and, I might add, shuffle and convert our words into the readable form as finally appearing in the Senate Hansard-I feel it fitting that I include some appreciative remarks in the Hansard record. Mr Roberts was appointed to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Hansard staff as a reporter in March 1957. After some 20 years of service with the Hansard department in the junior ranks, he was appointed a Leader of Staff in September 1978, Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter in September 1979 and, ultimately, Principal Parliamentary Reporter in February 1981. From my own personal experience, I can assure honourable senators that to become a reporter in the Commonwealth Parliament is a significant and honourable achievement. But to become the head of the Commonwealth Hansard is the highest honour which may be achieved by a member of the profession in Australia. Mr Roberts has seen many changes take place in his 27 years of service with the Australian Parliament. He has seen the development of the Senate committee system with its consequential increased demands placed on the Hansard staff, not to mention the increased demands that are placed on senators and parliamentary staff. He has seen the advent of tape recordings of committees and of the Senate itself between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. on Thursdays. He has seen the introduction and use of stenotype machines. He has seen the production of Hansard progress from hot metal methods to computerised phototypesetting and now, within his period as Principal Parliamentary Reporter, his Department is wrestling with the technological requirements associated with moving a specialised staff to the new Parliament House in 1988. I can only say that throughout his time with the Parliament he has performed his duties with distinction and always with the aim of maintaining the high standard and reputation of Hansard. Jim Roberts has served the Senate and the Parliament well. I say with the utmost of sincerity that this quiet, unassuming and efficient servant of the Parliament will be greatly missed. Jim will retire to his interests in gardening, fishing and stamp collecting. He and his wife, Pat, have a son and two daughters, one of whom I might add, Megan, is following in her father's footsteps and has become a reporter in Sydney. On behalf of all senators, I wish Jim and his wife Pat a long, happy and healthy retirement and I thank him for the service he has rendered to the Australian Parliament and the Australian nation. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.23) —I rise very briefly to associate myself with the remarks that you, Mr President, have made about Mr Roberts. They were very comprehensive. Mr Roberts has not only carried out the functions of the senior position in Hansard with all the management responsibilities that that entails but I believe he has also been a great innovator in the Hansard service. Of course, as you have said, it is not a very enviable task to try to make sense out of what we say. It is a necessary occupation. I do not know whether it is always rewarding but I hope it has been rewarding for Mr Roberts. Like the President, I wish him a long and happy retirement. I give him a word of advice. I hope he does not take retirement too seriously and that he will do a number of things for a long time to come, which has been the pattern of his life, things which will be useful to this community. I extend, on behalf of the Government, our best wishes to him and his family in his retirement and thank him for his very great service to the Parliament. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.24) —On behalf of the Opposition and personally, I support the comments that you have made, Mr President, and those of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) on Jim Roberts's retirement from this place. Mr President, I had forgotten until you spoke that in a sense you are a member of the old boys' association. Although you were not a Hansard reporter, you have learned the arduous task of trying to get down records of proceedings in the courts. It is not surprising that you were able to give the Senate such a full description of Jim Roberts's career in this place. I suppose the only point which has not been covered in the many comments which have been made is an acknowledgment of the very great difficulty under which Hansard reporters work. I suppose they occasionally get a chance to rest in the Senate, but most of them have to brave the lower House. When I watch the proceedings in that House the cross flow in the chamber is such that I wonder how any accurate record can be kept. I think it was a Minister who said: ' Sometimes there are 30 or 40 people talking at once in here'. At worst we have five or six usually in the Senate, so this must be a breeze for Hansard reporters. I do marvel at the very good way in which the Hansard reporters have coped with what I have seen in this place. I acknowledge the leadership which Mr Roberts has given to the relatively youthful team that he has led. I think the time has come when we should not only wish him well and thank him; I think we should also proffer a bit of advice. I would just like to tell Mr Roberts that he should know that his stamp collection is assessable under the assets test. This is something which may embarrass him a few years down the track, but I notice that he is retiring at a relatively young age and he can dispose of things at a couple of thousand dollars a year. I suggest that he could be counselled by Senator Grimes or some other honourable senators to make sure that there is no future embarrassment for him because of the legislation which has been put through this place and the debate which he has had to record at, no doubt, what he regards as tedious length. Mr Roberts, on behalf of the Opposition I thank you for your contribution to this place. There was one thing that struck me as I was listening to the President and, indeed, as I was reading what was said in the other place about your leaving; that is, the fact that your period of service in the top position has been relatively short. Our experience in the Senate has been that we have had a rapid succession of Clerks. It reminded me that there are real management problems in running sophisticated management services where relatively small numbers are involved. It struck me, Mr President, that this is one of the continuing management problems in this Parliament which you and the other Presiding Officer would have to contend with. In the whole planning process of the future organisation of the Parliament we need to bear in mind the long range forecasts that need to be made about the management requirements of all aspects of this place. It is of the essence of stability in running organisations such as this that one gets people who serve not for too long and, again, not too short either. I simply pose that as a genuine problem that I think has to be dealt with at all levels in the operation of the Parliament. That, of course, is getting a long way from the purpose of my speaking now and I apologise for that, Mr President. I simply say on behalf of the Opposition that we understand the very real difficulties under which members of the Hansard staff work. We are grateful for the way in which they do their job and for the tradition which requires them to remain silent and not to complain about the burdens that we heap on them. I congratulate Mr Roberts for the technical improvements that he has brought about during his term and for the wider contribution that he has made around the world by his various activities. Mr President, I join you and the Government senators in wishing Mr Roberts a long, active and very happy retirement. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.27) —Mr President, on behalf of the Australian Democrats I join you and my colleagues in wishing Mr Roberts a very happy and contented retirement from this hectic and difficult place. Under his leadership the Hansard staff has continued to provide a reporting service of a very high standard. I have been particularly impressed by Hansard's attention to detail. For example, I recall a consultation I had with them last week on how one can most accurately spell the word 'Liboral'. This high standard has been achieved in spite of difficulties caused by the substantial increase in parliamentary committee activity, including the tendency for committees to sit during sittings of the Houses, the recently introduced practice of the Senate and House of Representatives of not scheduling a break for lunch on Thursdays and the current sitting pattern which concentrates sittings into eight consecutive working days at a time instead of nine days spread over a period of three weeks, as previously. I have no doubt that the Hansard staff regards this as an excess of zeal; sometimes I do myself. However, I can only say at this stage that Mr Roberts has done an excellent job in his position. We wish him well for the future. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.30) —Clearly there is very little left for me to say. On behalf of my Party I wish Mr Roberts all the best in the future and thank him for his very significant contribution to the working of this chamber. I never cease to be amazed by the tolerance, the capacity and what must be a great sense of humour exhibited by members of the Hansard staff over a period. It just seems a pity that they have to watch the table, the machine or whatever they have in front of them and are unable to look up sufficiently to appreciate the sort of entertainment capacity there is inside this chamber from time to time. Mr Roberts has operated in almost every capacity in Hansard and so has exhibited great versatility. His contribution to this chamber has been a great one indeed. One thing that I found a little hard to understand was why a person such as Mr Roberts who, I understand, was born in Parramatta in New South Wales and lived a significant number of years along the northern beaches area of Sydney chose to come to Canberra. I find that extremely hard to understand, but that sort of thing does occur. Mr Roberts has well and truly earned his retirement. I hope and believe that he will enjoy it and I thank him for his contribution to the work of the Senate. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.32) —I rise to pay tribute to Mr Roberts and, through him, to his Hansard staff. Life was not meant to be easy for the Hansard staff and life was not meant to be easy for independents in this place, but the confidence that we have in Hansard came very much into focus for me when I had a stack of 'pinks' on my table today and I took one look at them, screwed them up and put them in the bin. That was not because what I had said today was of no value or of no use; It was my realisation that those 'pinks' represented precisely what I had said, given the editorial alterations that no doubt would have been made by Hansard staff to improve the speeches. How anyone can stay in this place, particularly in the House of Representatives , for 27 years and retain his sanity is beyond me. Obviously Mr Roberts, having started his job 27 years ago as a Hansard reporter in this place and in the House of Representatives, has done just that. I wondered what was the secret of sanity. Clearly that quality is possessed by Mr Roberts. It is also possessed by you, Mr President. So my conslusion is that if one wants to retain one's sanity one should opt for the profession of court reporter in the first instance and learn about the vagaries of life by recording them. Once one has done that obviously one has a firm basis for a sane and balanced approach to life. Perhaps that is Mr Roberts's secret, because his job has not been an easy one. His job has been most difficult. It may have been made even more difficult by decisions that we have taken over the last 12 months, 18 months or whatever when we changed the times of the sittings. A great deal of pressure has been put on the Hansard staff as a result. I have tried to do my best for Hansard by objecting every time a motion has been put forward in this place for committees to meet at the same time as the Parliament is meeting-I ask Mr Roberts to note that-because that extends the difficulties of the Hansard staff. I think we have to bear that in mind in the future when we are considering those aspects. I wish Jim and his wife a very happy retirement and I simply say thanks to him. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.35) —Mr President, Eddie James retired a few weeks ago after 40 years of service. He was the Chief Telecom Technician in Parliament House, and spent 12 years in valuable service to the Senate, the Joint House Department and members in the House of Representatives. I am sure honourable senators will recall the untiring efforts of Eddie James to keep up with modern technology and to provide it in a practical way to senators and members. He came here at about the time the President's wing was being constructed and provided telecommunications for the then President and later Sir Magnus Cormack. He saw the building of the present Prime Minister's wing and led the installation of the now-switching units for the Prime Minister and his staff and Press office. During the heyday of the NSU technology over 550 NSU units were fitted in Parliament House. He was to the fore in modifications of a technical nature to suit the needs of each Prime Minister, from Sir William McMahon onwards. Cabinet reshuffles after each election and, in fact, between elections meant that massive amounts of energy, time and material had to be expended. During his career here he always made sure that everything was done on time so as not to cause any disruption to the communications of senators and members, and staff whom Parliament relies on for the smooth running of business. He really built up quite a name for himself with his prowess in the design area. If a system did not suit the needs he would modify it and redesign it so that it would. His work has been most effective and we commend his high standard of excellence. During his time we saw the introduction of the facsimile means of transmissions of documents by phone and the touch-phone. The further advances of technology brought the Commander system and Eddie James initiated its installation within Parliament House. Not long after I came here, Parliament commenced its winter recess, and when I came into and left the building I frequently heard the paging system being used. I usually heard: 'Paging Eddie James, paging Eddie James'. After a while I inquired as to just who he was, where he fitted into the scheme of things, and the important role that he had to play. I am also told on good authority that even that in most cynical section of Parliament, the rooftop which houses the Press, he was always appreciated. Intercoms and telephone systems could break down in that place and editors and chiefs of staff would be screaming about deadlines and the air would be rent. Eddie James would walk in and calmly say: ' Don't worry, we will fix it'. The fact is that he did fix it in no time at all. He had a quiet, unassuming presence and a calming influence on everybody with whom he came into contact. I would like to wish him well upon his retirement. I also offer best wishes to Mr and Mrs Roberts. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.37) —I was aware of the retirement of Mr James, and I would like to associate the Government senators with the very comprehensive remarks made by Senator Reid. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.38) —I, too, very briefly wish to say that I am very sorry Eddie James has left. I think he was one of the very good blokes in this place. I certainly marvelled at the fact that in all the messing about that goes on in this building, the telephone system always seemed to be under control. I think he is one of those extraordinary men who would always fit into any circumstance, and he certainly fitted in very well here. I believe he will be very much missed, not only for his services but also for the way he went about things. I wish him well. While I am on my feet, and without wishing to delay the Senate further, I would also wish Anthea Tinney well as she leaves this place. I think she has made a great contribution to the smooth running of the Senate. She has done that in a very pleasant way. Whilst we have had a succession of very fine officers who have done the parliamentary liaison work, I think that Anthea has been outstanding and I wish personally to thank her for the way that she has contributed to the smooth running of this place. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.40) —Very briefly, I add the thanks, appreciation and good wishes of the Australian Democrats to what my colleagues have said about Eddie James and Anthea Tinney. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.40) —Mr President, I did not know that Mr James had left. I will not go into it but I have a very real reason to be thankful for his efficiency in respect of telephone calls and so forth. I wish him all the very best. I did not even know that Anthea Tinney was leaving. I wish to concur with what the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, said about her. She has been a most efficient officer, completely unflappable and, I believe, a great asset to the Parliament. I am sorry that she is leaving. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(11.41) —I add my best wishes to those conveyed to these two officers-Eddie James and Anthea Tinney-as they leave. They have performed their various duties unobtrusively and indeed they leave somewhat unobtrusively. We are aware of their great contribution. We thank them for it and we wish them all sorts of good luck in the future. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.41) —I usually make a practice of thanking a lot of people towards the end of any parliamentary session and, of course, we have come to the end of this one a little earlier than the festive season. I remember that last year I thanked the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for being our Claytons Attorney-General. I am not going to say that this year but I think that some of the things he has said over the last 24 hours have proven what I said last year. But I will not go into that at this stage. I would like to thank not only Mr Roberts but all the people from Hansard. I noticed a lady come into the chamber tonight with a bow on her machine which I thought meant that she had a birthday today. I will have a birthday soon. It is a birthday that I am not really looking forward to. Senator Collard —Why not? Senator TOWNLEY —It will be my fiftieth birthday and I am not looking forward to it. Some people do not even get to a fiftieth birthday. I thank all the people in Hansard for the way in which they have looked after my speeches and made them much more readable than perhaps the way I presented them. I thank not only the people here in Canberra but also those around the country who arrange the transport for all of us. I do not know whether we always notice the things that are done for us by the transport people and the attendants around this chamber, but I certainly notice and appreciate these things, and I thank them. They are always very attentive to the needs of senators and in fact in a lot of ways I think they spoil us to a very great degree. I especially thank the staff of the refreshment rooms for the way in which they have looked after me and my health during the last 12 months. Senator Button —Invaluable service to the country too, Senator. Senator TOWNLEY —They have been of invaluable service. If they have looked after you, Senator Button, they have been of invaluable service because I can assure you that there are many senators on your side whom I regard as much more deleterious for the country than you. One of them was not here for a lot of today. I have had a lot of help from the people in the members dining room, in the private dining room and all around this Parliament House from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms. I thank those people, a lot of whom have had a very difficult time because of the crazy sitting hours this Senate now has. Why on earth should they have to arrange their time-table to suit us? Why occasionally does not this Senate think of something sensible for the staff of this place rather than just the people who come here periodically- as it is now, two weeks here and two weeks away? I think any doctor would say that the sitting hours we now have are not suitable. Once again we are sitting too late at night, thanks most probably to the vote of the Australian Democrats. Senator Gareth Evans —Thanks to you. Why don't you sit down and shut up? Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Clayton, the guy who has not been here for 24 hours or more, when the matter of the security of this country was brought up in the Senate, says: 'Why don't you sit down and shut up'. Again he opens his trap when he ought to keep it closed. When is Claytons going to learn that he should keep his trap shut a bit more often? When he does he will be a lot more popular around this country, not only in Tasmania. After the lies he gave the Australian Broadcasting Corporation today- Senator Gareth Evans —On a point of order, Mr President. 'Lies' is a thoroughly unparliamentary expression, even coming from someone who is incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Townley to withdraw that expression. Senator TOWNLEY —I withdraw the word 'lies'. I shall say untruths instead. Senator Gareth Evans —That is very big of you. Senator TOWNLEY —Again we get a smart remark from the Attorney-General who says: 'That is very big of you'. Let me tell him that I have shoulders at least as wide as his. I could say the very words he said to me when I was trying to help him go to Melbourne to see his wife get her doctorate at Melbourne University. Those words would be unparliamentary and would not even be allowed in front of the pornographic video censorship group. I would never think of using them in this place, and that is the reason why I call the Attorney-General 'Claytons'. He is the Attorney-General you have when you do not have an Attorney-General. I wish to thank the transport officers who have helped me, the printing office which has done a lot for me, and the Press who have done some very sensible reporting about a lot of matters that have come before the Senate. I also wish to thank the many people who have helped and supported this Senate during the last 12 months. I pass on my usual greetings of the year to everyone in the Senate and the very many people who have supported us. I thank them for everything they have done. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(11.47) —Senator Chaney and others mentioned Anthea Tinney in an in globo context. I had intended to give her special treatment, if I might call it that, and say something particular about her. As Parliamentary Liaison Officer, all senators will agree she has been most helpful, fair and competent in everything she has done. Not only has she been helpful, fair and competent, she has been cool in an environment that is not always cool, and very firm with some senators, including me, from time to time when things had to be done which one might not have wanted to do. I thank her very much for her period of service to the Senate. She is going back to the maw of the Department. If I have been preoccupied in the last week or so, it is because I have been trying to persuade the Department that she should be placed in the First Division and remain in her present duties. The Public Service is totally unimaginative in these matters and I could have no influence at all, as one does not have influence on many matters of that kind. We will all miss her, and once again I thank her for her services. I hope she will call in and see us from time to time, if she can bear that. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.49) —This is developing into a very lengthy session, but I wish to add that there are many people who serve us here, and on behalf of the Opposition I thank them all. They come from all sections of the Parliament, from the Clerks, who sit with us here, through to the dining staff, who sit a lot further away. In thanking them all I also wish to thank you, Mr President, for your very fair and firm handling of the Senate during this short Parliament. The only other thing I say is that I hope that Government senators have an exhausting and unsuccessful campaign. After that, I hope that they have a happy and relaxed Christmas. I wish my own senators an exhausting and very successful campaign and, after that, a very busy Christmas as they pick up the reins of government. I wish you, Mr President, a happy Christmas. I hope that you will take a thoroughly objective stance in this election campaign, exercise a totally bipartisan role, bless us all, and go away and just have a wonderful time. The PRESIDENT —I want to pay tribute to all members of the Senate staff, who are obviously dedicated parliamentary officers in their service to the Senate and the Parliament. I particularly thank the Clerk of the Senate and all of his officers, the Usher of the Black Rod, and the Senate attendants, who have attended this chamber, for their assistance not only to me but to all senators. I thank the members of the Senate committee secretariat, who have contributed an enormous amount to the effective running of the Senate committee system. I thank everyone on the Senate staff. They are deserving of the highest accolade. I pay tribute to the Parliamentary Librarian and his staff, to the Hansard staff, who have been so ably led by Mr Roberts, who has already been mentioned this evening, and to the Joint House staff. They have all worked hard to fulfil the needs of all senators and members. I also join the Leader of the Government Senator Button and the Leader of the Opposition Senator Chaney in conveying my best wishes to Anthea Tinney, who, unfortunately, as I understand it, is leaving us. She has contributed greatly to the proceedings of the Senate, and we all wish Anthea well. All members of the staff have carried out their duties and responsibilities with patience and understanding. On behalf of not only myself but all senators I express my appreciation to them. To all members of the Senate I express my personal best wishes and felicitations for a merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I look forward to seeing you all back in February next year, invigorated, refreshed and ready for questions without notice. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.52) —I should not dare to add, Mr President, to the eloquence of the kind comments that have been made about so many people during the last half hour. However, with the indulgence of the Senate, or perhaps in spite of it, I wish to make some comments about a matter of considerable importance in Western Australia-the tax-free status of gold. I rise on the adjournment to remind honourable senators of the importance of maintaining the tax-free status of income received from gold mining and from the sale of the right to mine a particular gold deposit by a bona fide prospector. This exemption was introduced during the Depression years of the 1930s. It was eminently successful in encouraging the development of gold mining. The production of gold between 1931 and 1940 doubled as compared with production in the previous 10 years. Prospecting and mining for gold is a particularly risky venture because of the volatile nature of the price of gold, the erratic and uncertain nature of gold deposits, and, more particularly, the very high cost in modern times of proving ore reserves and grade. The tax-free nature of income received from gold mining has been a very important way of improving the returns on gold mining and encouraging enterprises to undertake the extra risks involved. Conversely, of course, any tax imposed upon gold would act as a powerful disincentive to investment in exploration and mining of gold, and that, in turn, would have dramatic repercussions for employment, not just in the gold mines themselves but in many small regional towns which are almost entirely dependent upon the gold mining industry generally for their continued existence. A recent survey which covered 80 per cent of gold producers found that over 6, 000 people were employed by these companies. Additionally, there are the people employed in exploration work. Conservative estimates number them at about 500. There are thousands more in related jobs or service industries whose jobs depend upon the gold mining industry. A tax on gold would immediately place jobs at risk. The first to go would be the small prospector whose income from prospecting is very low. Most small prospectors transfer their right to mine minerals which they have discovered to companies with the finance and expertise to develop a large scale mining operation. Of course, the income they receive from such transfers is tax free. To tax it would substantially reduce the incentive for small prospectors to carry on looking for gold that they cannot hope themselves to mine. Small prospectors make a great contribution to the gold mining industry. Their inherent flexibility, mobility and lack of overheads enable them to cover wide tracts of land and exploration which could not be justified by large companies in the absence of promising indications of mineralisation. Their detailed knowledge of particular areas makes them valuable field assistants for professional geologists. The small prospector's role in the industry was perhaps best summed up by the Chamber of Mines in its submission to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into gold production in 1975 which said: The prospector will always be an integral part of prospecting for gold and is an essential and continuing aid to the discovery of minerals of all types. A tax on gold would detrimentally effect the development of gold mining projects which are currently being studied, particularly the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia. Many of these projects involve a relatively low grade ore which is now worth mining because of the development of the carbon-in-pulp process-no doubt that is well known to the Australian Labor Party-which enables gold to be extracted from ore that was previously considered to be of insufficient quality. The imposition of a gold tax would inevitably make many of these projects quite uneconomic, adding several grams to the tonne and grade required to make the mine viable. It would also effect the mines which are currently in operation. Those which mine low grade ores are especially sensitive to any additional imposts and could be forced to close if a tax were to be levied upon gold. Unfortunately, once development has stopped and pillars in the stopes, or pull up levels, are removed that section of the mine becomes too dangerous to re- enter and therefore could not be re-opened. Therefore, mine closures would be permanent and the damage caused would be irreversible and irretrievable. There is no question that taxation concessions for the industry prop up inefficient operations. The IAC report on gold production in 1975 found that these concessions provided little or no assistance to unprofitable mines and, therefore, would have little effect on decisions to close such mines. However, the report did say: Production of profitable mines may have been stimulated, and some marginally profitable producers may have extended the operating lives of their mines in anticipation of higher gold prices, increased profits and increased assistance through the tax exemption. It ought to be understood quite clearly that the price of gold has subsequently gone up. Many mines which in the past may not have been economic are now marginally viable and those which were marginally viable would become uneconomic in the event that there was a tax on gold. I believe that this fact was borne out by a submission from the gold producers themselves. For instance, Central Norseman Gold mines in Western Australia confirmed that the tax exemptions were effective in maintaining net profits above the level at which a decision to close operations might have been made. Central Norseman Gold mines is one of the largest gold producers in Australia. Had it not had this tax free moratorium or exemption that mine would have closed. It would have closed a town of approximately 4,500 people and a town which has a work force of something like 1 ,500 people. In essence, therefore, the tax free status of income from gold mining sustains a substantially higher level of activity at all stages of the industry than would otherwise be the case. This is not to say, however, that the industry is free from government imposts-far from it. The gold producers must still pay royalties, tenements, mining licence fees, land taxes, water rates, withholding taxes, group tax, payroll tax, sales tax and stamp duty excluding sales tax. Impost paid by gold producers in 1982 amounted to, as best as I am able to determine, $19.3m. The cost of the tax free status of gold in terms of lost taxes to the Government is minimal, especially when one considers the cost of assistance to the manufacturing industry. In 1982, prima facie tax payable at 42c on gold incomes could have resulted in an estimated $11.5m, a modest $11.5m, in taxation payable by the 80 per cent of gold producers covered in a recent survey. I compare that with the $197.8m spent on Commonwealth assistance to the manufacturing sector in 1982-83. In 1984-85 assistance to manufacturing will be of the order of $286.6m. That puts the assistance afforded to the gold mining industry by taxation concessions in some sort of proper and reasonable perspective. Of course, the potential revenue which could have been gained by levying a tax on gold income would have to be offset against the cost of the economic damage that such a tax would cause. I have already pointed out that well over 6,000 people are directly employed in the gold mining industry. In Western Australia, the goldfields region of Kalgoorlie, Boulder, Coolgardie, Laverton, Leonora and Menzies-perhaps I should refer to my own town of birth, Wiluna-with a population total of over 30,000 depends almost entirely on the income and employment generated by the gold mining industry. There is almost no other source of employment in these areas. It would be inevitable that people who lost jobs in the gold mining industry would drift back to the city, starting a disastrous chain reaction in the service industries which relied on their income. In addition, declining gold production would result in declining export income from that source. Gold production in 1981-82 was worth $202.7m. Gold exports in 1982-83 amounted to $ 209.1m. I cite that figure in the clear understanding, accepted by the Senate, that of our export earnings 45.2 per cent is used to service our external debt and our external interest payments. I am raising this issue now because it is important for honourable senators to be aware of the damage that a tax on gold income could cause the gold industry. Unfortunately, members of the Australian Labor Party have already indicated their willingness to tax incomes from gold mining. At the oil and gas conference in November 1983, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, said in regard to the tax free status of gold: There is a negligible rational economic justification for that tax free status . . . subjecting gold to a rent tax with a threshold near the market rate of interest . . . would have little effect on investment. With these sorts of remarks emanating from the Minister for Resources and Energy it is little wonder that gold producers are fearful of what action the Labor Party will take in the event that it is re-elected. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, with his inevitable, invariable and admirable frankness, has admitted that Australia will face 'significant budgetary problems ' in 1985 and 1986. If time allowed I would very much care to develop that argument. However that is a proposition Senator Button has put, and it is endorsed by this side of the chamber. A Labor government would be looking for more revenue from all possible sources to support its excessive expenditure. The disastrous effects upon the gold industry, and the towns and jobs which depend on it, of a gold tax would far outweigh any short term revenue gain. I raise this because it is not without significance to note that in respect of the major export earners of Australia, mainly the primary industry sector which accounts for approximately 40 per cent of our export earnings, there is expected to be an aggregate reduction in income of 29 per cent this year. In respect of the export earnings of metals and minerals, which account also for approximately 40 per cent of our export earnings, there is a dramatic reduction in their level of revenue. The 1984 indices to 4 September show a decline of 20.4 per cent. Copper is at its lowest level in 30 years. The price of iron ore has reduced by 50 per cent in the last two years. The spot price of uranium is the lowest in history. The price of lead is the lowest in very many years. One could go through all these items and find without exception that there is dramatic decline in our capacity to earn income dollars from the mining, metals or farming sectors. As I said earlier, if one accepts that combined they provide something like 80 per cent of our export earnings, and those export earnings are absorbed by 45 per cent in terms of our repayments, we understand the difficulties that we have. While Senator Button may be inclined to tell us that the manufacturing sector is being stimulated at present, that appears not to be the case. As one looks pragmatically and realistically down the road one quickly realises and appreciates that the economy in the next 12 to 18 months will be in great difficulty. For that reason I have grave concern, particularly given that Senator Button has told us in the last two or three days that there will be a total review of the taxation system in Australia. One can only assume, on the premise, on the bases and on the conclusions that can be drawn from the observations of and comments made by Senator Button and Senator Walsh, that there is no practical, pragmatic, realistic or economic argument that they would put forward which would exclude tax on gold. On that basis I put forward the submission that that is a grave risk to that industry and I trust that the Labor Party will seriously reconsider before it goes down that path. However, clearly it has not come out in any real form and denied the prospect of a tax on gold. It is on that basis that tonight I challenge the Government to tell me categorically that there will not be a tax on gold in the next three years. Thursday, 25 October 1984 Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.08 a.m.) —If anyone was in any doubt about the thickness of Senator Crichton-Browne's hide we have had ample confirmation of that tonight in the way in which he has detained the Senate on this matter. I am sure that the Minister for Resources and Energy ( Senator Walsh) who is responsible for this matter will take into account what Senator Crichton-Browne has said. I will detain the Senate for a couple of minutes to respond to some rather extravagant and silly things that were said by a number of honourable senators, who should have known better, on the adjournment last night. I have not had an opportunity, having been away today, to respond prior to this and I think it is necessary, with the Parliament getting up, to set the record straight. As to the matters raised by Senators Townley and Jessop relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, I think I have sufficiently responded to that in media comments during the day, to which Senator Townley was rather indignantly reacting tonight. I do not wish to add anything further to what I have already said on the public record there. As to the matters raised by Senator Kilgariff, and rather pompously followed up by Senator Chaney, concerning the alleged theft of certain Commonwealth property from the Pine Gap station some months ago in November 1983, and my alleged role in it, it is necessary to say just a little more. Of course, this was the subject of questions to me in this place on 9 and 10 May by Senator Messner. Senator Kilgariff does not seem to have referred to those questions or answers in giving his rather garbled account of the events last night. Certainly his reference to my having attended some house somewhere in Melbourne at which a raffle took place is a bizarre misconstruction of what was discussed in this place on 9 and 10 May, which was an allegation that the material had been on display at an Australian Labor Party conference last year attended by some 450 delegates, including me, and that some raffle might have taken place or been organised on that occasion. I denied any specific knowledge of such a raffle when I spoke in the Senate on 10 May. I certainly repeat that denial tonight. What I did undertake to do for Senator Messner at that stage was to seek some follow-up investigation by the Australian Federal Police. That occurred. I have in fact had a report from the Australian Federal Police via the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), which came to me during the last parliamentary recess. I neglected to put that on the public record, but since the matter has now been raised again by Senator Kilgariff I do so. The relevant part of the letter of the Special Minister of State to me read as follows: I have now received a report on the matter from the Australian Federal Police ( AFP). I am advised that on or about 13 November 1983, the AFP Officer in Charge of the Pine Gap Station reported that female demonstrators at Pine Gap had removed the perimeter gate bearing a number of signs. Police recovered the gate but the signs had been detached and were missing. Enquiries made by the AFP have failed to identify the person or persons involved in removing the signs. However, based on media reports, the AFP understands the signs were apparently subsequently auctioned or raffled on 27 November 1983 at an Australian Labor Party meeting at Collingwood Town Hall, Melbourne. Further media reports suggest that this ''auction'' was organised by the Hon. Joan Coxsedge, MLC, as part of a fund-raising effort on behalf of the Anti-Uranium Group. Considering the circumstances surrounding the removal and the difficulty involved in identifying the person or persons who removed the signs, and having in mind the considerable expense that would be incurred, I am advised the AFP decided not to pursue the matter. This decision does not, of course, preclude the AFP from taking further action in the future should information be received indicating the identity of the person or persons involved. I hope that that once and for all sets this rather absurd matter to rest and inhibits the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) from making the kinds of allegations about my responsibilities as Attorney-General that he has been minded to make on this and other occasions in the past. Mr President, I wish you and everybody else a cheerful and happy Christmas and say that I hope that we are all a little bit more sane and sensible when we return in the new year. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is regrettable that at a time and occasion when normally there is some benevolence and good will on both sides of the chamber Senator Gareth Evans in his normal inimitable-perhaps one might say inimical- fashion comes in here and in his rude, crude, unattractive and arrogant way makes the sorts of observations he made following debate on what I considered to be a very important issue affecting Western Australia. I find it regrettable that Senator Evans, because he has been away for the day and every other honourable senator has been terribly jovial, has judged that I should put aside for the moment the matters which rest heavily on the minds of many people in Western Australia. So often I have defended Senator Evans, even amongst my colleagues. I have been on committees with Senator Evans and I have found him on those occasions to be a man who is decent of heart- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is ceasing to be a personal explanation, if indeed it ever was. It is becoming a rehash of the issues which Senator Crichton-Browne is anxious to pursue. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you have sought leave to make a personal explanation. Leave has been granted. I now ask you to restrict your remarks to the personal explanation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr President. The particularly offensive phrase was that I was a man of thick hide to have the courage- Senator Gareth Evans —Q.e.d. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —At least Senator Evans gets the beginnings of words right, even if he cannot get the Latin right. Senator Evans suggested that I was a man of thick hide because I had the courage to make some observations about a matter on which his Party has equivocated and no doubt will take a view after the election. It is not my problem that he is sensitive to the views- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will restrict his remarks to a personal explanation. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —With respect, Mr President, my reason for making this personal explanation tonight is that the points I sought to make earlier were on matters which are very important to Western Australia. They are of great concern to the vast majority of people in our community and also of particular and special concern to the people of the Federal seat of Kalgoorlie- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is out of order. The honourable senator has been asked to make a personal explanation. He is now removing himself far from a personal explanation. I declare him out of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.15 a.m. Thursday until a day and hour to be fixed by the President in accordance with the resolution of the Senate agreed to this day. The following papers were presented: Defence Act-Determinations 1984- No. 54- Disturbance Allowance. No. 55-Child Allowance. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of disqualification under Section 19C (2), dated 2 October 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 762) Senator Maguire asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 March 1984: (1) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in January 1984 or the latest available month. (2) What was the total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in South Australia in January 1984 or the latest available month. (3) By how much did employment fall, and in which departments and statutory authorities in South Australia, from January 1980 to January 1984 and from May 1983 to January 1984. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in March 1984 was 422,100. (2) The total number of employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities in South Australia in March 1984 was 37,300. (3) The ABS introduced new collection arrangements from the June Quarter 1983 onwards for the purpose of obtaining data relating to employment in the government sector. Because information obtained by means of these new arrangements is not strictly comparable with that for earlier years it is not possible to provide consistent data covering the period from January 1980 to January 1984. (Information in respect of the period from January 1980 to May 1983 was supplied in response to the honourable senator's question of 24 May 1983-See Hansard of 13 September 1983, page 609). From May 1983 to January 1984 there was an aggregate increase of 600 in the number of persons employed by Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities in South Australia. Particulars of agencies which recorded falls in employment during this period are as follows: Department of Administrative Services-43 Department of Defence-24 Department of Primary Industry-25 Australian Broadcasting Corporation-51 Australian National Railways Commission-268 Commonwealth Banking Corporation-49 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation-20 Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)-14 (Question No. 1044) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) How many school leavers were employed by the Commonwealth Public Service in 1982-83 and 1983-84. (2) What is the State by State breakdown of those figures. Senator Button —The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) A complete answer to this question cannot be provided from statistical records maintained by the Public Service Board (PSB). These records show the ages and qualifications on appointment of permanent officers but not the numbers who attended school immediately before appointment to the Australian Public Service (APS). In addition, no detailed statistics are maintained on the engagements of temporary and exempt employees. However, the PSB has provided the following State by State breakdown of the number of person aged 18 years and under appointed to the APS without post- secondary qualifications in 1982-83 and 1983-84: State 1982-83 (a)1983-84 ACT 590 804 NSW (b)1,326 639 Victoria 511 418 Queensland 237 154 South Australia 138 183 Western Australia 196 132 Tasmania 56 81 Northern Territory 22 8 Total 3,121 2,374 (a) Preliminary figures, which are not expected to vary significantly. (b) The high level of recruitment in New South Wales in 1982-83 was mainly to meet an exceptional demand for clerks class 1 in Employment and Industrial Relations and Social Security and for clerical assistants grade 1 in Social Security and the Taxation Office. (Question No. 1132) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: Will the Government give an assurance that Australian military and bilateral infrastructure aid is not being used by the Marcos regime to suppress human rights in the Philippines, as has been alluded to by several aid authorities and Father Brian Gore. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia has a small Defence Co-operation Program (DCP) with the Philippines which has increased from $0.804m in 1979-80 to $1.66m in 1984. DCP expenditure since 1979-80 has remained about the same both in real terms and as a proportion of the overall Defence Co-operation Program-3.4 per cent. No weapons or armaments are provided to the Philippines under the DCP, which, with the Singapore DCP, is the smallest in South East Asia. The Government is aware of criticisms that the DCP with the Philippines contributes to, or exacerbates, human rights problems in that country. The Program comprises mostly training and technical advisory assistance related to Australian equipment previously supplied under the Program. This includes maintenance assistance for 12 Nomad aircraft; technical assistance for Australian-made small-arms target equipment (DART); medical kits; and the provision of training in Australia. We would hope that exposure of overseas trainees to the Australian military institutions and traditions and to the attitudes of the broader Australian community during training courses in Australia will in the longer term help to increase awareness of human rights issues and thus reduce abuses. There have been criticisms that the road building associated with the projects benefits the army by providing access to the hinterland areas. The Government believes, however, that the benefits to the people of the region outweigh concerns about military use of the roads. The roads are intended to facilitate farm to market access. Although there have been suggestions that Australian aid to certain countries should be discontinued, the Government is of the view that the purpose of Australian aid is to develop infrastructure and alleviate some of the social and economic problems of developing countries. The discontinuation of such aid could punish the most needy people in a developing country without influencing those who direct affairs. The Government recognises, moreover, that Australia's commercial, aid and diplomatic relations with other states enable us to maintain a dialogue with them on human rights matters. The Government pursues such a dialogue with a view to promoting genuine, lasting improvements in human rights. (Question No. 1156) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) What agreement currently exists between Australia and Japan regarding Japanese fishing within the Australian fishing zone (AFZ) off the east coast. (2) Does information contained in the AFZ Information Bulletin showing that large numbers of black marlin are being taken by Japanese fishing in the east coast area of the AFZ have disastrous ramifications for our local marlin industry. (3) Will the Government, in future agreements with Japan, place a total ban on marlin fishing in the east coast region of the AFZ. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Japanese fishing within the Australian Fishing Zone off the east coast of Australia is covered by the current subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna longline fishing. This agreement expires on 31 October 1984. (2) The AFZ information bulletin contains information relative to the activity of foreign fishing vessels in the AFZ. It provides an up to date assessment of catch rates as well as a very general indication of the areas in which the catch was taken. This information is largely based on regular radio reports provided by the foreign vessels concerned. Over the period 1980 to 1983 this information indicates that their total catch of black marlin off the east coast averaged 260 tonnes. This represented 5 per cent of the total catch in these waters. The present state of our knowledge suggests that the stocks of billfish (including black marlin) are not currently endangered in these areas. I am also not aware of any scientific publication which suggests that longline fishing is having a deleterious effect on billfish stocks. In response to earlier concerns by game fishing interests, Japanese longliners have already been excluded from extensive areas off the east coast of Australia where direct competition with Australian fishermen was evident. (3) Because of the largely non-selective nature of the fishing method concerned the institution of a total ban on the take of marlin would involve a virtual prohibition on longlining by Japanese longliners off our eastern coast. Having regard to these circumstances and in the absence of clear evidence that our marlin industry or resource is being significantly affected, the imposition of a total ban on taking of marlin would be an extreme reaction. It would undoubtedly bring a strong reaction from Japan especially in view of our international obligation to permit foreign vessels access to those resources of our zone which are excess to our harvesting capacity. The matter was discussed during the recently concluded negotiations on the terms and conditions to apply to Japanese access to the AFZ during 1984/85. The Japanese Government and tuna industry organisations present at the negotiations were advised of the concerns of the Australian game fishing industry and of the need to ensure their operations were not jeopardised by Japanese fishing activity. As a consequence Japanese longliners operating off the east coast will be instructed by their Association to release all marlin which is alive at the time their fishing gear is recovered. They have also agreed to modified reporting procedures designed to improve their catch/position reporting off Cairns. The situation with respect to Japanese participation in the marlin fishery off the east coast will be kept under review during the course of the 1984-85 Agreement. (Question No. 1168) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs explain why the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board has suddenly decided to force catering establishments to operate within a strict interpretation of the previously liberally interpreted provisions of the specific awards for the employment of apprentice cooks. (2) Does this now mean that establishments employing only 1 or 2 cooks can no longer employ an apprentice cook. (3) Will establishments employing over 3 cooks-e.g., 3 to 30 cooks-be able only to employ 1 apprentice cook, until that apprentice has completed 2 1/2 years' apprenticeship (when it may be possible, but only with the Board's approval, for that establishment to then employ a second apprentice cook). (4) Does the projected forecast suggest that this means that at most an intake of only 15 apprentice cooks will be allowed in the Australian Capital Territory every third year-and none at all in the intervening years. (5) Will the Minister take steps to correct this situation which shows disregard for the future of many young people with an inclination towards becoming professional cooks; if not, why not. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Three awards covering the employment of apprentice cooks state that 'one apprentice cook may be employed in each kitchen where three or more cooks are employed'. The Apprenticeship Board, in accordance with the wishes of the catering industry, has been interpreting the awards to mean that one apprentice may be employed for each three cooks. The Board believes that the awards need to be changed to reflect this interpretation. Because the Board is not a party to the awards, it cannot take formal action to seek to vary them, but it has for some time been actively encouraging employers and their respective associations to take this step. In the absence of any progress, the Board decided it could not apply indefinitely its current interpretation and advised the appropriate industry groups and union accordingly. Since this decision was announced, the Board has been advised that the Motel Association of the Australian Capital Territory has commenced action to seek a variation in its award. The Confederation of ACT Industry will, on behalf of individual employer members in the industry, also be making an application for variation. Apprentices already in the system will not be affected by the Board's decision, and it is hoped that the necessary variations to the awards will be completed before the 1985 apprenticeship intake occurs. (2) to (4) Yes, unless the award is varied, except that as previously mentioned , apprentices already employed will not be affected. (5) As mentioned in the answer to Question (1), action to have the awards raised is now in progress. This is the most effective way of protecting the future of young people intending to make careers as cooks. (Question No. 1175) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Is the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs aware that a previously well-attended course, 'Cooking for Health', held at the Woden College of Technical and Further Education (Woden TAFE) had to be withdrawn this year, because of inadequate funding. (2) Is the Minister also aware that the National Heart Foundation recently distributed copies of 'Heart Health' to all Australian Capital Territory primary schools to supplement existing school health programs. (3) Will the Minister explain the anomaly of such concern for health at primary school level, while at the same time effectively blocking practical aid to people willing to attend practical courses aimed at increasing health awareness and skills in the community. (4) Will the Minister ensure that the 'Cooking for Health' course is returned to the curriculum at Woden TAFE next year. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Woden TAFE College, like the other TAFE Institutions did not receive the allocation sought in the 1983-84 Budget simply because the Government was not able to provide all the funds requested. In these circumstances the College Executive had to decide how best to use the funds available and quite properly elected to give priority to vocational type courses over high cost, short term, non-vocational type courses. The course ''Cooking for Health'' belongs to the second category and accordingly was not offered by the College in 1984. (2) I am aware that the National Heart Foundation publication 'Heart Health' was distributed to primary schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Actual distribution was at the rate of two manuals per school and was undertaken by Rotary as a community service. (3) There is no anomaly in this case. The prime function of the TAFE Colleges is to provide vocational training/education. The colleges will respond to requests from the community to design and offer non-vocational courses such as ' Cooking for Health' provided all of the resources required to mount the course are available but vocational type courses must take priority. (4) The decision must rest with the Executive of the College and will be based entirely on the known resources available to the College at the course planning stage for the 1985 academic year. However, I am sure that every effort will be made by the College to include in its program those courses which were not available during 1984. (Question No. 1201) Senator Reid asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose were the vehicles purchased. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) 76; (b) 73; (c) 30; (d) and (e) Type Size Make Cost $ Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 9,457.00 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 9,289.00 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 8,893.05 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 10,357.84 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 11,034.54 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 10,954.00 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 7,623.35 Sedan 4.1 litre Ford 8,196.00 Sedan 2.0 litre Ford 6,678.00 Sedan 3.3 litre GMH 8,500.46 Sedan 3.3 litre GMH 8,417.00 Sedan 3.3 litre GMH 7,828.55 Sedan 1.6 litre GMH 4,770.76 Sedan 1.6 litre GMH 7,115.92 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 8,281.13 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 9,557.53 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 10,293.85 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 10,884.84 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 10,909.54 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 9,102.87 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 10,906.34 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 9,387.38 Station Wagon 4.1 litre Ford 8,227.33 Station Wagon 3.3 litre GMH 8,949.32 Station Wagon 3.3 litre GMH 9,362.00 Station Wagon 1.6 litre GMH 7,864.82 Station Wagon 1.6 litre GMH 8,784.00 Station Wagon 1.6 litre GMH 8,036.00 Panel Van 3.3 litre Ford 9,556.08 Van 2.0 litre Toyota 8,935.00 268,113.50 (f) The Department provides vehicles to veterans who, as a result of their service, are suffering from certain amputations or paraplegia. The purpose of the gift is the benefit derived by the recipient and there is no requirement that the veteran drive the vehicle personally, or that the gift vehicle be the only family vehicle. Although described as a gift, title to the vehicle remains vested in the Commonwealth and it is necessary for the grantee to complete an undertaking not to sell or otherwise dispose of the vehicle without prior written approval of the Commission. A new replacement vehicle is supplied when an existing one is five years old or has travelled 80,000 kilometres. (Question No. 1037) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice , on 22 August 1984: (1) Why has the Minister for Education requested her Department to provide information on the cost of collecting fees and their likely impact on students. (2) Has the Minister received this information; if so, what does this information say and if not, when does she expect to receive it; will she make this information public. (3) Has the Government any intention of reintroducing tertiary tuition fees. (4) Can the Minister give a firm undertaking that the Government will not reintroduce tertiary tuition fees. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) My Department was asked to undertake an examination of the wide range of issues raised by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) in its report for the 1985-87 triennium. The question of tertiary fees was raised by the CTEC in its report and by a number of commentators at about that time. I asked for some work to be commenced in the event that others outside the Government further pursued the fees argument. That did not eventuate and no detailed information was prepared. (3) No. (4) The Government has firm policy commitments not to reintroduce tuition fees. Senator Grimes —On 4 April 1984 (Hansard, page 1187-8) Senator Elstob asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the licensing of health food and herbal medicine manufacturers. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: My attention has been drawn to the statement by the Australian Pharmaceutical Society urging the licensing of health food product manufacturers. The National Therapeutic Goods Committee on which all States, Territories and the Commonwealth are represented has given consideration to various aspects of the control of health food products. The licensing of health food manufacturers in Australia is the responsibility of the State health authorities. I have asked the National Therapeutic Goods Committee to look further at the need for licensing such manufacturers. I would expect that the manufacturers of health and herbal supplements and medicines in Australia would comply with the provisions of the Australian Code of Good Manufacturing Practice for Therapeutic Goods. However, enforcement of the provisions of the Code currently rests with the States. In these circumstances, I have also asked the National Therapeutic Goods Committee to consider quality and safety control testing of these products and report back to the health ministers. Senator Grimes —On 7 September 1984 (Hansard, pages 671-2) Senator Haines asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning iscador. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: Some information obtained from the Swiss manufacturers of iscador has recently been provided to the Department of Health through the Melbourne Therapy Centre ( MTC) for cancer and other patients. The President of this organisation, and two doctors who wish to prescribe iscador, also met with members of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC)'s Anticancer Sub-committee on 24 August to discuss the matter. The manufacturing data which have been provided have been evaluated, and a number of questions have arisen which will be forwarded to the Swiss manufacturer in the near future. A preliminary scan of the clinical data indicates that they are substantially the same as those reviewed in 1982 which, as was indicated in my earlier reply, were found to be inadequate to establish either safety or efficacy of iscador. However the MTC representatives stated during the discussions in August, that more recent information would be supplied in a few months' time. The ADEC at its most recent meeting on 21 September, deferred making any further recommendation regarding iscador until all the supporting data have been supplied and evaluated. The honourable senator stated that iscador is available on prescription in New Zealand, in Britain under the National Health Scheme, and in a number of other countries. Clarification of its status in the United Kingdom was recently sought from the United Kingdom health authorities who were asked specifically whether iscador was approved by them for general marketing or clinical trial (for treatment of cancer, arthritis or any other condition); whether there had been any government evaluation of its quality, safety or efficacy; and whether it is available on the National Health Service. The telexed reply from the United Kingdom Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) indicates that a licence was granted for iscador injection in the United Kingdom in 1972 and is still current . Technically if a product is licenced it may be prescribed on the NHS. The CSM is undertaking further investigations and additional information may be forthcoming regarding safety and efficacy of the product. Advice from the West German health authorities is that iscador was registered in that country under old laws and that it will be reviewed in due course along with other unevaluated drugs. Information on iscador's status in a number of other countries has been sought but replies are not yet to hand. Approval for distribution of therapeutic substances in Australia is, however, the responsibility of the Australian Director-General of Health, and is based on independent evaluation of supporting data and not on overseas status. Experience has shown that the fact that a product is sold on the market in other countries is no guarantee of either safety or efficacy. Senator Button —On 12 September 1984 (Hansard, page 884) Senator Reynolds asked me a question without notice relating to parliamentary representation on statutory authorities. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following additional information: The legislation establishing a number of statutory authorities listed below includes provisions requiring parliamentary (as against ministerial) representation: Advisory Council on Australian Archives (one senator nominated by the Senate; one member nominated by the House of Representatives) Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations (three members of Parliament nominated by the Prime Minister; two members of Parliament nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; in addition one member from each of the State Parliaments) Australian Council for Union Training (one member of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister; one member of Parliament appointed by the Leader of the Opposition) Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (two senators appointed by the Senate; two members appointed by the House of Representatives) Council of the Australian National University (two senators nominated by the Senate; two members nominated by the House of Representatives) Council of the National Library of Australia (one senator nominated by the Senate; one member nominated by the House of Representatives) Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust (the Minister for Finance; two senators nominated by the Senate; two members nominated by the House of Representatives) Current Parliamentary membership of these bodies is set out in the Notice Paper . In addition it has been the practice of successive governments, where they have considered it appropriate, to appoint senators and members to a number of other statutory bodies, although there is no statutory requirement to do so, notably CSIRO Advisory Council (at present Dr H. R. Edwards, MP, and Mr P. R. Staples, MP, appointed 10 May 1983, until the commencement of the 34th Parliament) Australian War Memorial (at present Mrs E. E. Darling, MP, appointed 15 September 1983 for a period of three years) Australian Bicentennial Authority (at present Senator A. W. R. Lewis, appointed 20 February 1983 for a period of three years; Mr D. W. Simmons, MP, appointed 29 May 1983 for a period of three years) It is, of course, up to the Parliament to determine at the time legislation establishing statutory authorities is being considered which authorities should be required to have parliamentary representation. Appointees to the boards of statutory authorities should be able to contribute through particular expertise and experience to the management of the authority. The perspective that elected representatives, senators or members, bring to bear is particularly valuable on certain authorities. Other authorities, such as the Public Service Board, clearly do not lend themselves to parliamentary representation. The question of accountability to Parliament is a separate one. Accountability is generally achieved through the requirement that authorities be answerable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to the Parliament. Senator Grimes —On 2 October 1984 (Hansard, page 1014) Senator Macklin asked Senator Walsh, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, a question without notice. His question concerned the introduction of incentives to assist ailing sugar producers and in particular whether the sugar industry in Queensland and New South Wales could expect any additional support from the Federal Government before the impending Federal election. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Federal Government is acutely aware of the difficult income situation facing the Australian sugar industry and will provide further assistance to the industry in 1984-85. I am currently negotiating with my Queensland and New South Wales counterparts a package of assistance measures under Part A of the rural adjustment scheme (RAS). This special assistance will be on top of funds currently available to Queensland and New South Wales in 1984-85 for general use under Part A of the RAS and follows the Commonwealth's $11m contribution ($10m to Queensland, $1m to New South Wales) in 1983-84 for carry-on assistance under Part B of the RAS. In addition to the above, another $20m will flow through the industry from 1 July 1984 as a result of the increase in the domestic sugar price which I approved as part of the new 5-year domestic sugar agreement. Senator Gareth Evans —On 23 October 1984 (Hansard, page 2204), Senator Durack asked me a question without notice about the location of a departmental file relating to representations made on behalf of Mr Morgan Ryan in 1982, and followed that with a supplementary question relating to access to that file, to which I undertook to provide a further answer. The following additional information is provided in answer to the honourable senator's question: The Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge asked my Department for access to the Ryan file by letter dated 27 September 1984. In the context of that request, which was referred to me for approval, I asked for the relevant material to be delivered to my office, where it has remained since approximately 4 October. In the event, copies of the relevant material were viewed by counsel assisting the Committee at the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Sydney, and the files in my office have not been, to my knowledge, viewed by any officer or member of the Senate Committee. The only other document in my possession which would appear to bear on Senator Durack's question is a detailed chronology of the progress of the Ryan matter through its successive phases, which was prepared at my request in February 1984, from material in departmental files, following the initial delivery to me of the Age tapes transcripts. That document has had a certain limited circulation within the Government as part of the general briefing material prepared by me in the context of the Age tapes matter. (Question No. 880) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: (1) Has the Attorney-General considered the need for wide-ranging public debate to precede legislation regulating the copyright of software, given the enormous practical difficulties in enforcing such laws. (2) What is the Attorney-General's attitude to funding the development of an Australian computer software industry given that computer software in Australia is currently all overseas owned. (3) What are the implications of computer software copyright laws on schools and other education institutions. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) As I explained in my second reading speech on the Copyright Amendment Bill 1984, introduced on 4 June, the Bill was prepared in the light of numerous public submissions and of discussions at the national Symposium held on 15-16 March 1984. This legislation, which came into force on 15 June 1984, clarifies and strengthens the copyright protection afforded to computer programs under the Copyright Act 1968 in the light of industry concern and uncertainty as to its scope. The Full Federal Court in Apple Computers v Computer Edge had earlier ruled that the Act already applied to computer software. That ruling has now gone on further appeal to the High Court. It is possible that the appeal will involve consideration of issues concerning the effect of the amended legislation as well as of the effect of the Act as it stood before the amendments. I made it very clear in introducing the Bill that it was intended to operate as a short term measure and that the Government would proceed as a matter of high priority to a consideration of policy for the long term through an appropriate enquiry. That enquiry will provide an opportunity for full public debate and public input in the consideration of long term policy on the issue of copyright protection for computer software. (2) This portion of the question relates largely to matters within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senator Button provides the following answer: 'There is substantial development of computer software in Australia by computer companies, independent software houses as well as companies primarily engaged in other activities. The ownership of locally developed software depends upon the ownership of the firm developing the software as well as the contractual arrangements between the developer and the client where software is produced for a particular client. Although there is no statistical information to quantify the ownership of computer software a large proportion is developed and owned by Australian owned and controlled enterprises. The Government has already introduced a number of measures which will improve the availability of finance to the local computer software industry. These include- the extension of industrial research and incentives to specifically cover software developed independently of computer hardware the encouragement of a venture finance market in Australia changes to the Australian Industry Development Corporation that have improved its ability to finance investment in areas such as computer software. Recognising the extent of development of computer software in Australia it would not be feasible or desirable for the Government to fund computer software development across the board.' (3) The implications of computer software copyright laws for schools and other educational institutions are appropriate matters for consideration by the enquiry into long term policy for computer software protection which the Government is committed to holding. Without pre-empting the issues which might be considered by that enquiry I note that, as a 'literary work' under the Copyright Act, a 'computer program' may not , for example, be copied or adapted without the copyright owner's permission. Limited exceptions to the copying prohibition are 'back-up copying' (section 43A ) and fair dealing for the purposes of (amongst other things) research or study (section 40). Educational interests have stressed the need for legislation which is clear and easy for teachers to observe, and which facilitates ease of access to copyright material without burdensome costs and requirements to keep extensive records. These are considerations which the enquiry for the long term undoubtedly will take into account. (Question No. 965) Senator Primmer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 June 1984: (1) Will the Attorney-General make arrangements for Mr Don Witheford's excess legal costs over those awarded by the Court to be met by the Commonwealth. (2) What is the total cost to the taxpayer, including salaries, of the prosecution of Mr Don Witheford. (3) Will the Attorney-General agree to receive a delegation from the Committee Against the Victimization and Discrimination in Employment in the Australian Capital Territory to discuss the various ramifications of corruption in the Department of Foreign Affairs. (4) Does the Attorney-General agree that Mr P. G. F. Henderson wilfully misled Senate Estimates Committee E on 3 May 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 24 October 1984, a duly authorised officer of my Department determined that- Commonwealth financial assistance be authorised to Mr Witheford to cover his reasonable legal costs and related expenses in respect of his defence of informations numbered 634, 635 and 636 of 1984 laid against him on 27 January 1984 other than those costs covered by awards made by the Court; the amount of financial assistance be assessed, as appropriate, by the Attorney -General's Department. (2) $8,967.56. (3) No. The question assumes corruption in the Department of Foreign Affairs. That matter has been the subject of four inquiries, namely, by the Department of Finance, the Australian Federal Police, the Ombudsman and a retired permanent head appointed by the Public Service Board under Public Service Board Regulation 33, and each of those inquiries has not found any allegations of corruption in the Department to be established. (4) No. (Question No. 990) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What are the national and State by State figures on days lost due to industrial disputes for the years 1982 and 1983. (2) How many of these days were lost because of a dispute on wages and hours. (3) How many disputes in the years 1982 and 1983 on a national and State by State basis were started because of employer refusal to negotiate. (4) How many disputes on a national and State by State basis went to arbitration and how many were settled without arbitration in the years 1982 and 1983. (5) In how many cases did the Federal Government intervene in industrial disputes in the years 1982 and 1983. (6) How many times did intervention by the Federal Government lead to a resolution of the dispute in each of the years of 1982 and 1983. (7) For each year 1982 and 1983 what was the average length of industrial disputes in Australia. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Apart from Parts (5) and (6), the information given has been supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1) The number of working days lost in industrial disputes for each State and Territory and for Australia during 1982 and 1983 are as follows: WORKING DAYS LOST IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (a)('000) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 1982 961.6 368.0 509.8 66.6 162.4 61.5 14.5 13.6 2,158.0 1983 801.2 257.7 135. 0 87.7 270.6 67.8 19.3 2.1 1,641.4 (a) Disputes, in progress during the calendar year, resulting in stoppages of work of 10 person-days or more at the establishments where the stoppages occurred. (2) The number of working days lost in industrial disputes in which wages or hours of work were reported to be the major causes, for each State and Territory and for Australia during 1982 and 1983 are: WORKING DAYS LOST IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (a) CAUSED BY DISAGREEMENT OVER WAGES AND HOURS (PRELIMINARY)('000) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 1982 676.6 257.9 466.2 53.4 43.9 23.0 3.9 11.8 1,536.6 (b) 1983 94.9 74.4 26.8 34.1 46.9 11.5 2.3 0.9 291.8 (a) Disputes resulting in stoppages of work of 10 person-days or more at the establishments where the stoppages occurred. Disputes commencing in a previous calendar year are included. Disputes continuing into the next calendar year are excluded. (b) Difference between the sum of component items and the total is due to rounding. (3) The information sought is not collected. (4) Information about the number of disputes referred to arbitration is not collected. The number of disputes reported as having been settled without arbitration for each State and Territory and for Australia during 1982 and 1983 are: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (a): NUMBER OF DISPUTES SETTLED WITHOUT ARBITRATION ( PRELIMINARY)('000) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 1982 785 225 214 81 395 38 49 16 1,803 1983 647 197 245 70 274 45 61 10 1,549 (a) Disputes resulting in stoppages or work of 10 person-days or more at the establishments where the stoppages occurred. Disputes commencing in a previous calendar year are included. Disputes continuing into the next calendar year are excluded. (5) There are numerous ways in which the Government can intervene in industrial disputes. For example, it can formally intervene in proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or it can intervene in a dispute by making representations to one of the parties involved. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has advised that there were thirteen occasions in 1982 and 1983 when the Federal Government formally intervened in proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Statistics on other types of intervention are not available. (6) The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has advised that many factors may lead to the resolution of a dispute and it would be inappropriate to isolate one factor such as government intervention and conclude that it provided the means for resolution of the dispute. (7) Information in the form sought in the honourable senator's question is not readily available. To obtain this information would require considerable diversion of resources, which I am not prepared to authorise. (Question No. 996) Senator Coates asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) What applications have been made in the last four years for financial assistance under (a) s.141A, (b) s.141B of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. (2) Which of the applications have been successful. (3) What payment has been made in each case. (4) What has been the name of the solicitor for the applicant in each case. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question (made up to 12 October 1984) is set out in the schedule below. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER SECTIONS 141A AND 141B OF THE CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT 1904-30 JUNE 1980 TO 12 OCTOBER 1984 Name of matter (name of applicant for financial assistance is in italics) Section Amount Name of solicitor for applicant $ Applications Approved and Paid R. W. Hill v. Ophel and Smith 141A 3,045.00 J. N. Zigouras & Co. R. A. Cook and Ors v. Crawford and Ors 141A 50,687.00 White, Barnes & McGuire J. Kanan v. M. A. Hawkins and Battese 141A 2,052.60 McClellands T. J. O'Donoghue v. Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners of Australia 141A 2,822.60 W. G. McNally Cox v. Robertson and Ors 141A 3,705.65 Turner, Freeman K. Stephenson and J. Masterton v. R. Squires and Ors 141A 3,424.00 Turner, Freeman H. W. Wilson v. J. P. Devereux and Ors 141B 6,469.43 Geoffrey Edwards & Co. Kelly v. Devereux and Ors 141B 5,825.54 Gill, Kane & Co. Donna Marie Valentine v. G. Butcher and Ors 141A 5,108.65 Holding, Redlich & Co. Ruth M. Geneff v. P. Wathiros and Ors 141A 1,722.00 Cummins & Co. Cook and Ors v. Crawford and Ors 141A 39,600.28 White, Barnes & McGuire Squires, McDowell and Monckton v. L. Pike and Ors 141A 4,212.39 A. J. Macken M. A. Hawkins v. F. K. Willis and Ors 141A 5,758.50 Steve Masselos & Co. Frank Troja v. MacDonald and Ors 141A 2,456.65 Oakley, Thompson & Co. Allen v. Townsend 141B 625.00 John B. O'Kane Squires v. Stephenson 141A 18,955.43 A J. Macken R. J. Hore v. Food Preservers Union 141A 3,557.33 Mitchell McKenzie & Co. R. Lawrence v. AWU 141A 2,396.70 Patrick J. Gethin F. Kerr and E. C. Tucker v. A. R. Rowell & Ors 141A 2,100.60 Maurice Blackburn & Co. E. C. Tucker v. A. R. Rowell and Ors 141A 2,225.40 Maurice Blackburn & Co. P. H. F. Kyng v. Cushion 141A 1,673.50 Walker, Gibbs & Donald J. S. King v. E. Voccaro and A. Pevie 141A 2,910.20 Mahoney & Partners R. Edwards and Ors v. Gietzelt and Ors 141B 6,357.96 Joseph Lynch & Window R. J. Campbell v. J. Gorman and Ors 141A 4,486.43 D. J. Fischer & Assoc. M. P. Jess v. R. J. Scott and Ors 141A 34,304.75 T. V. Martin & Co. Grimshaw v. Petrie and Ors 141A 3,602.79 Gill, Kane & Co. J. R. Cleworth v. D. Barrow and Ors 141A 8,188.77 W. G. McNally & Co. L. F. Howard v. Slaters, Tilers and Roofing Industry Union 141A 1,435.70 J. N. Zigouras & Co. M. Bourke v. Mapstone and Ors 141A 26,532.38 A. J. Macken T. Molomby v. Gills and Ors 141A 1,864.20 Turner, Freeman Applications not yet finalised P. J. Mahony v. Petie and Australian Bank Employees Union 141A Patrick Grimes & Co. M. A. Prichard v. Federated Clerks' Union (No. 4 of 1981) 141A Mahony & Partners M. A. Prichard v. Federated Clerks' Union (Nos 1, 3 and 15 of 1981) 141A Mahony & Partners F. Caputo v. J. van Doldren and Ors 141A J. N. Ziqouras & Co. R. H. V. Pearson v. Milligan and Ors 141A Dale and Fallen J. Dugmore v. Porter and Ors 141A Walker Gibbs and Donald N. T. Hanscombe v. Gietzelt and Ors 141A T. D. Kelly & Co. M. A. Prichard v. Federated Clerks' Union (Nos 17 of 1981 and 9 of 1982) 141A Mahony & Partners M. A. Prichard and J. L. Bailey v. Kranz and Ors 141A Lindsay, Morrisey & Co. F. Allen and L. Park v. BWIU of Australia 141A Patrick J. Gethin J. P. Roughan v. Aust. Meat Industry Employees' Union and Ors 141A Maurice May & Co. Longworth and Holland v. Geneff and Ors 141A Dwyer, Durack & Dunphy D. Young v. Aust. Workers' Union 141A Turner Freeman S. Wright and J. Walker v. Aspinall and Ors 141A Turner Freeman J. P. Roughan v. Aust. Meat Industry Employees' Union and Ors 141A Maurice May & Co. Imlach and Walker v. Daley and Ors 141A A. J. Macken M. A. Prichard v. Krantz and Ors (No. 6 of 1983 141A (Self-represented) G. D. Adams v. Hill and Ors 141A T. V. Martin & Co. M. R. O'Grady v. Federated Storemen and Packers Union 141A Maurice May & Co. P. J. Hennessey and R. E. Scott v. Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union 141A Branicki Milder & Co. J. Walker v. McLeod and Ors 141A Turner Freeman D. Paterson v. Beaumont and O'Brien 141A Mahony & Partners R. M. Geneff v. Peterson 141A Patrick J. Gethin Mapstone v. Bourke 141B Chris Callaghans & Co. Beaumont and O'Brien v. Paterson 141B Johnson Withers & McCusker Border and Ors v. Coal Indust. Union 141A W. A. Baxter & Co. James Doyle v. Australian Workers Union 141A Palios, Meegan & Co. R. M. Geneff and Ors v. Longworth and Holland 141B Patrick J. Gethin D. Allshorn v. Theatrical and Amusement Employees Union 141A Gill, Kane & Co. McHugh v. Apap and Ors 141A Harrison & Partners Slater v. Hawker 141B Maurice May & Co. P. J. Hennessey v. Amal. Metal Foundry and Shipwrights' Union 141A T. V. Martin & Co. Applications Rejected R. J. Squires v. Flight Stewards' Association of Aust. and Ors 141A Turner, Freeman (Question No. 1028) Senator Coates asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: Does the Sex Discrimination Act oblige the States to change their laws on the registration of births to ensure the father can be named on a birth certificate as well as the mother, whether or not they are married to each other and whether or not they use the same surname; if so, has the Attorney-General advised the States of this; if not, why not, and is there any action the Government can take to bring the law up to date on this matter. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Sex Discrimination Act does not oblige the States to change their laws on the registration of births in the way described. To the extent to which these laws do not entitle the father of a child to be named on a birth certificate they would be discriminatory against men and not within the reach of legislation the constitutional foundation for which, in its operation with respect to State laws, is the external affairs power and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Commonwealth does not otherwise have power to legislate comprehensively with respect to information to be included in birth certificates. (Question No. 1035) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Does the Royal Australian Navy now have greatly reduced capability to provide: (a) vital tactical reconnaissance; (b) air defence of shipping; (c) flexibility to support army in deployment and operations; (d) anti-submarine warfare; (e) aircraft for training purposes in major exercise areas; (f) support to friendly governments; and (g) evacuation of Australian nationals from neighbouring countries in time of political tension of natural disasters; if so, why, and if not, what are Australia's capabilities in these areas. (2) Is the Government going to provide a helicopter weapons system which is urgently required by our Fleet; if not, why not, if so, when will this be provided. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Defence Force structure decisions are made on the basis of overall Defence Force capabilities and not on those of one Service acting alone. Developments in military technology will sometimes argue that some tasks previously carried out in one way and by one Service will in future be better carried out in a different way. Judgments about what is best will, of course, be made in the context of Australia's unique strategic circumstances. In some of the instances of the honourable senator's question, Navy's capability is reduced as a consequence of the retirement of HMAS Melbourne but the Government is satisfied that, as a result of various other actions, the overall capability of the Defence Force will be sustained at a level appropriate to our security needs. In most cases the capability will be greater than before. As a general point, the new Defence Force capabilities will be more versatile and less vulnerable than those based on a single aircraft carrier. Depending on priorities at the time and the availability of support and suitable airfields for the land based air element, they will be able to be employed simultaneously at several different locations, and they will not be subject to periodic total loss of the single aircraft carrier platform whenever it is due for refit. Dealing with the specific capabilities of the question: (a) Tactical Reconnaissance: By 1986 the present maritime force of RAAF P3B and P3C aircraft will have been upgraded to 20 P3C long range maritime patrol aircraft all with advanced sensor systems with all-weather capabilities for superior to previous RAN aircraft. New helicopters are planned to be operating from each of the RAN's four FFGs by 1988, and to be available for the two further Australian-built FFGs when completed in the early 1990s. These improvements will be reinforced by a program of upgrading our northern airfields , and by technological developments such as the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar project. (b) Air Defence of Shipping: This capability will soon be provided by a combination of FA18 aircraft operating from airfields around Australia and the variety of area and point air defence guided missile and radar-directed gun systems of the RAN's destroyers and frigates, including a capability, not previously available, to defeat anti-ship missiles. Developments in broad area surveillance systems could be an important element in future maritime air defence. (c) Flexibility to Support Army in Deployment and Operations: The Defence Force has considerable flexibility to support the Army in deployment and operations. Elements which could be used for deployment tasks include fixed and rotary wing transport aircraft, amphibious and other ships, and, of course, the arrangements developed to use the substantial capacity of the civil transport system in defence emergencies. The FA18 is far more capable than any aircraft we have previously owned for air support of ground force operations using a range of specialised guided weapons and other munitions in all weather. (d) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Our ASW capability is substantial now and will be further enhanced when the entire long range maritime aircraft force is made up of the new P3C aircraft equipped, amongst other systems, with the Barra Sonobuoy system specially optimised for our sea conditions. The new helicopters for the FFGs will have advanced ASW capabilities. (e) Aircraft for Training Purposes in the Major Exercise Area: Air support for Fleet, training is now provided by RAAF tactical fighter, strike aircraft and others which will expose the RAN to a wider range of high-performance aircraft than was possible before, and by contracted civil aircraft for target towing. This new arrangement enhances the emphasis on maritime operations by the RAAF's squadrons. (f) Support to Friendly Governments: There are obviously many elements of the Defence Force which could provide entirely appropriate support to friendly governments. (g) Evacuation of Australian Nationals: With HMAS Tobruk and HMAS Jervis Bay, Navy retains a significant capability to provide assistance in times of tension, or natural disasters. As evidenced by the movement of stranded civilians from New Zealand some time ago, the C130 transport aircraft squadrons have a very substantial 'evacuation' capacity. The number of Australian nationals involved is not such that these capabilities, supplemented when appropriate by civil air transport resources, are likely ever to be deficient. (2) Helicopter Weapon Systems for the Fleet: The Minister for Defence announced on 9 October 1984 an in principle decision that 8 Seahawk helicopters are to be acquired for the FFGs. The helicopters will provide anti-submarine warfare and surface surveillance and targeting capabilities appropriate to our longer-term defence needs. The first helicopter is planned to be delivered in late 1987. (Question No. 1046) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) Did the insurrection at Eureka in Victoria on 3 December 1854 represent the first major organised resistance by a group of independent Australian workers against colonial government injustices. (2) Does the historical significance of Eureka establish the uniquely Australian term 'digger', the Australian soldiers' trademark ever since and which was the work of diggers who were denied the franchise, who were denied representation in the Legislative Council of Victoria, who could not readily obtain land on which to settle, who were charged exhorbitant licence fees and who were violently harassed by government officials when they could not pay those fees. (3) Has the rebellion been described by writers as 'the pioneer and supreme Australian event in the spectacular sense' and that Dr H. V. Evatt once declared that 'Australian democracy was born at Eureka'. (4) Will the Government consider declaring 3 December a national holiday to commemorate the Eureka Stockade, beginning on 3 December 1984, which will be the 130th anniversary of this historic event. (5) Will the Government also consider supporting the adoption of the famous Eureka Southern Cross flag as Australia's national flag as it is the only flag of traditional and historical significance that is uniquely Australian and exemplifies the past and present spirit of Australian independence, courage and a 'fair go'. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) Eureka is generally recognised as the first major organised resistance in Australia by members of a workers' movement. The term 'digger' was widely used on the goldfields of Australia in the 1850s to describe the miners and was adopted by Australian soldiers in the trenches in France during World War I. Many prominent writers have described the Eureka incident as a significant event in the history of Australia. Dr Evatt did state that ' Australian Democracy was born at Eureka', the occasion being an address to the Labor Golden Jubilee Committee in 1940. Responsibility for declaring public holidays rests with the individual State and Northern Territory Governments. The Commonwealth Government's power to declare such holidays is limited to the Territories which it administers. The Government is aware of the interest in the community in national symbols and may review the matter at a later date. The question of the status of the Eureka flag could be included in any such review. (Question No. 1051) Senator Jones asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) Can the Attorney-General indicate when the proposed Australian Bill of Rights legislation will come before Parliament. (2) Will that legislation, when passed by Parliament, override any existing State and Federal legislation which intrudes upon the rights of individual Australians. (3) Will the implementation of that legislation require any alterations to the Constitution. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Bill of Rights Bill will not be introduced into Parliament this year. I hope to be in a position to introduce the Bill in 1985. (2) The content of the proposed Bill of Rights is not yet settled, but it is contemplated that it will bind governments at all levels, Federal, State and local, but will not regulate the actions of private individuals and corporations . Until the final form of the Bill is settled, it would be premature to embark upon a detailed description of what impact it will have on existing legislation. It is intended however, that ample opportunity will be given for public comment and debate on the Bill after it is introduced into the Parliament. (3) No. In the form in which the Bill is to be introduced, it will draw upon the existing constitutional powers of the Parliament. I would hope that it would be possible to entrench the Bill of Rights by a constitutional amendment after some years' experience of the working of the legislation. (Question No. 1054) Senator Primmer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) Can the Attorney-General advise at what stage is the Government's consideration of the payment of all the unrecouped legal fees of Mr Don Witheford, of the Department of Foreign Affairs, arising out of the abortive Crimes Act prosecution against him earlier this year. (2) Can the Attorney-General advise what, if any, steps have been taken to avoid a recurrence of prosecutions of this nature against public servants in the future. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) See my answer to Question 1 in relation to Question on Notice No. 965. (2) I do not propose to take the steps mentioned in this question. Future prosecutions of this kind will be brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions . I stated in the Senate on 10 November 1983 on the second reading of the Director of Public Prosecutions Bill 1983 that '(D)ay to day prosecution decisions will ordinarily be made by the Director or his officials'. (Question No. 1077) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) and (2) As at 1 September 1984, my Department employed 442 keyboard staff including court reporting typists, and of this number 104 persons have been, or are, off work due to repetition strain injury. (Question No. 1121) Senator Primmer asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 September 1984: (1) Did the Acting Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Kevin Dobson, on 16 March 1984, describe the prosecution of Mr D. Witheford of the Department of Foreign Affairs as having been conceived in prejudice and born in bias on the part of some officers of that Department. (2) Did the third and last charge remain outstanding against Mr Witheford for a further 4 months. (3) Did Mr Nicholl, SM, determine on 17 July 1984 that a prima facie case had not been made out on the third charge. (4) Was the prosecution of Mr Witheford not a malicious one. (5) Was Mr Witheford suspended from duty for more than 6 months because of this prosecution. (6) What action is proposed as a result of Mr Dobson's criticism of the prosecution and Mr Nicholl's finding on the third and last charge. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Other than the opinion expressed by Mr Dobson in question (1) above, the evidence did not disclose that the prosecution was malicious. (5) The question of the suspension of Mr Witheford is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs. (6) The officers referred to by Mr Dobson were officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and therefore it is not a matter for the Attorney-General. In respect of Mr Nicholl's findings, no action is proposed. (Question No. 1130) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: Is it the intention of the Government, following the release of draft amendments to schedule 7 of the Companies Act whereby directors of public companies will be forced to divulge total remuneration including 'perks', to make senior officers of statutory corporations similarly divulge their total remuneration. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following consideration by the National Companies and Securities Commission of existing arrangements for the disclosure of directors' emoluments and the remuneration of senior executives of companies, proposed amendments to schedule 7 of the Companies Regulations will be circulated for public comment next year. These amendments, if implemented, would require an extension to the arrangements for the disclosure of directors' emoluments and senior executives' remuneration and of retirement and similar benefits. Details of the total remuneration payable to holders of public offices including the most senior officers of statutory corporations are contained in determinations of the Remuneration Tribunal which are tabled in the Parliament. Retirement benefits are payable to the extent provided by legislation. (Question No. 1136) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) What is the progress of negotiations for international agreements for transfer of Australians serving terms in gaols of other countries to complete their sentence in Australia. (2) When will the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General be considering the issue in furtherance of implementing transfer arrangements. (3) What is the progress of draft legislation and other arrangements for the transfer of Australians who are prisoners in overseas gaols. (4) How long will it be, in the Attorney-General's estimation, before Australian prisoners overseas will be able to be moved. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows: (1) Negotiations with other countries for international agreements have not yet commenced. As a successful international transfer of prisoners scheme in the case of Australia necessarily depends upon State co-operation, it would not be prudent for the Commonwealth to commence the negotiations for treaties without the support of the States. The matter is being considered by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. (2) The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General is already considering the international transfer of prisoners. It will be on the main agenda when the Committee meets next, in December. (3) The drafting of enabling legislation has not commenced. It would not be appropriate to commence until the Commonwealth has finalised its negotiating position for the international agreements. (4) I would hope that a final negotiating position could be reached by the end of 1984 or early 1985. That would enable some international agreements, the Commonwealth legislation, the administrative arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States and the necessary administrative infrastructure to be put into place during 1985. I say only some international agreements, because some will be able to be finalised more quickly than others. Where agreements are finalised with a minimum of delay the prisoners that are affected could be transferred as early as in the first six months of 1986. (Question No. 1141) Senator Reynolds asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Can the Attorney-General indicate if it is likely that in the near future regular sittings of the Federal Court will be held in Townsville with such sittings being serviced by judges from Brisbane, Darwin or elsewhere since recently a good deal of work for that Court has originated outside the Brisbane area. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 requires the Federal Court to sit from time to time at the places at which the registries of the Court are established, but the Court may sit at any place in Australia. The Governor-General may cause such registries of the Court to be established as he thinks fit, but the Court itself decides if and when it will sit at a place without a registry. I have sought the views of the Court on the honourable senator's question in the light of these provisions. The Registrar of the Federal Court has stated that an examination of non- bankruptcy matters filed in the Brisbane registry in the period March to October 1984 has not revealed any matters originating outside the Brisbane area. However , the Chief Judge is prepared to arrange a sitting of the Federal Court at Townsville in mid 1985, assuming that arrangements can be made with the State Supreme Court for the use of a court in Townsville. This will provide an opportunity for practitioners to bring on any Federal Court matters in that city . (Question No. 1150) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State , upon notice, on 13 September 1984: (1) Does the Special Minister of State, following the report in the Northern Territory News of 10 September 1984, which detailed the report of the Australian Federal Police that there have been 22 reported 'mystery' aircraft movements over northern Australia in the last 3 years, acknowledge the seriousness of this situation where unidentified aircraft, possibly involved in drug running or other illegal flights, are able to fly over northern Australia unchecked. (2) Will the Minister take action to implement a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week coastal surveillance, to ensure that all flights over the northern Australian coastline can be adequately monitored. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Government views seriously the possibility that aircraft are being used to smuggle drugs into Australia through the remote north. The 22 reports referred to came from the records of the Department of Transport , and represent incidents reported to the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre by persons in the north who became suspicious because they did not have a ready explanation for something they had seen or heard. In no case did the follow-up inquiries point to the fact that any of the suspect aircraft were engaged in smuggling drugs or other goods. We acknowledge that it is difficult to check on all aircraft movements in the North. We are looking at over 10,000 kms of northern coastline, encompassing an area consisting mainly of uncontrolled airspace in which many hundreds of legitimate aircraft movements take place each day. However, the situation is improving, particularly as a result of the establishment of Coastal Protection Unit regional co-ordination centres at Cairns, Darwin and Broome. (2) It is not practicable to develop a system which could adequately monitor all flights over northern Australia 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Government is confident nevertheless that advances in technology together with enhanced intelligence gathering, and improved co-ordination of surveillance and response operations will substantially increase our capacity to control drug smuggling in the remote north. (Question No. 1151) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 October 1984: (1) What were the rates immediately before 8 p.m. (AEST) on 21 August 1984, and immediately thereafter, for customs duty, excise duty and sales tax on each of- (a) Cider (Australian): (i) alcoholic, and (ii) non-alcoholic; and (b) Cider (imported): (i) alcoholic, and (ii) non-alcoholic; and (2) Do the changes in (1) above decrease assistance to or protection of Australian cider with respect to imported cider. (3) Does the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) Act require that a reference to the IAC is necessary before assistance or protection is changed by the Government. (4) When was the most recent reference to the IAC on protection of or assistance to Australian cider. (5) When did the Minister for Industry and Commerce send the current reference to the IAC for an inquiry into assistance for the apple and pear industry. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b)- Australian Cider Imported Cider Alcoholic Non-alcoholic Alcoholic Non-Alcoholic Pre 8 p.m. 21 August 1984- Customs Duty n.a. n.a. $0.30/l $0.30/l Excise Duty nil nil n.a. n.a. Sales Tax nil nil 20% 20% Post 8 p.m. 21 August 1984- Customs Duty n.a. n.a. 23% and $0.30/l $0.30/l Excise Duty nil nil n.a. n.a. Sales Tax 10% nil 10% 20% n.a.: not applicable. Note: Cider with an alcoholic content of not more than 1.15 per cent by volume of alcohol is defined as non alcoholic for sales tax and customs duty purposes. (2) No. (3) The circumstances in which a report from the IAC is required before a Minister takes certain action to change levels of assistance or protection are contained in section 23 (3) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. However, the section has no application to the introduction and enactment of legislation to implement a decision of Government. (4) There has been no reference sent to the IAC on the protection of, or assistance to, Australian cider. (5) 3 September 1984. (Question No. 1185) Senator Reid asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total of those vehicles; and (f) for what purposes were the vehicles purchased. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The National Companies and Securities Commission, which is jointly funded by the Federal and State governments, and the Australian Institute of Criminology are the only organisations within my portfolio which own vehicles. The relevant details are: (a) Five; (b) five; (c) two replacement vehicles; (d) Mazda 626, 4 cylinder sedan, and Commodore 6 cylinder station sedan; (e) $19,739 (Mazda $10,195 and Holden $9,544); (f) for official use by officers employed in the organisations. (Question No. 1192) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose were the vehicles purchased. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) to (f) My Department and statutory authorities within my portfolio, except the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Joint Task Force (JTF) and the Office of Narcotics Control Bureau (ONCB), do not own motor vehicles. Vehicles in use are hired from or through the Department of Administrative Services. In respect of the AFP, JTF and the ONCB, the information sought by the honourable senator is: (a) AFP-25; ONCB-nil; JTF-16. (b) AFP-42; ONCB-2; JTF-16. (c) AFP-17; ONCB-2; JTF-9. (d), (e) and (f)- Price per Purpose for which No. Type unit Total cost purchased $ $ Australian Federal Police 2 Yamaha 550cc motor cycles 1,480 2,960 Traffic, Trail bike squad general policing, A.C.T. 2 Datsun 13 seater buses 6,727 13,454 Carriage of operations response Division personnel 2 Ford F 350 11,829 23,659 Carriage of operations response Division personnel and equipment 11 Not disclosed . . 25,143 Surveillance-makes and sizes not disclosed for security reasons Total: 63,216 Office of Narcotics Control Bureau 1 Nissan Urvan 2289cc-10 seater 11,052 11,052 Transportation for ONCB Computer Centre 1 Nissan Stanza 1700cc-5 seater 7,818 7,818 Transportation for ONCB Computer Centre Total: 18,870 Joint Task Force on Drugs 9 Not disclosed . . 88,224 Surveillance-makes and sizes not disclosed for security reasons Total: 88,224 The Joint Task Force is funded equally by the Commonwealth and State government . The motor vehicles are initially paid for and registered to the Department of the Special Minister of State. The State government then refunds half the money. (Question No. 1208) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State , upon notice, on 5 October 1984: (1) Does the overseas travel baggage insurance of up to $2,000 for Ministers paid by the Department of the Special Minister of State apply also to: (a) ministerial staff; (b) senators; and (c) members of the House of Representatives ; if not, why not. (2) Did the Special Minister of State personally take advantage of this facility during his visit to Britain in June 1984. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The arrangements for baggage insurance were introduced decades ago by the government of the day. They apply to Ministers and Opposition office-holders when travelling overseas at official expense and to senators and members who are part of a parliamentary delegation which is funded by my Department. I am not aware of the practice relating to baggage insurance for parliamentary delegations not funded by my Department. Ministerial and Opposition office-holders' staff are covered by Public Service Determination 2/C/3 (b) which provides for them to be reimbursed an insurance premium on essential personal effects carried by the staff member of a value not exceeding $A2,000. (2) In accordance with established practice my Department, as a matter of routine, took out baggage insurance on my behalf for my official visit to Britain in June 1984. (Question No. 1221) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1984: Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs assure the Parliament that, given the Government's commitment to the promotion of affirmative action programs and the elimination of discrimination based on sex, marital status and pregnancy, these principles will be adhered to during the recruitment of staff generally for the Veterans' Review Board. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: I can assure Senator Reynolds that the principles she mentioned were adhered to . I am pleased to say that the new Veterans' Review Board will have eight women members, three of whom will be senior members. I am hopeful that even more women will be appointed to senior positions in the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the repatriation determining authorities in the future. (Question No. 401) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 October 1983: (1) How many ASIO officers are employed in countries overseas as Immigration officers. (2) In what countries are they located. (3) Which department pays the salaries of these officers. (4) For what purpose are they employed. (5) What is the total cost of (a) salaries; and (b) other expenses of employing these officers. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1, 2 and 5 (a) As part of Australia's migration screening program, a small number of ASIO officers is assigned to migration posts abroad. These officers are declared to the appropriate authorities of the host countries and are responsible to the senior migration officer en poste, and through him to the Head of Mission. Liasion arrangements with Foreign Security Services is sanctioned by the Attorney-General under s. 19 (c) of the ASIO Act 1979. (3) Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (4) To engage in the security screening function, an approved integral part of the migration selection process, and general intelligence liaison. (5b) Allowances as per Public Service Officers of equivalent rank at respective overseas posts and ancillary movement costs. (Question No. 1029) Senator Walters asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Is it a fact that justices of the peace are no longer listed on passport application instruction sheets as one of the categories of persons eligible to complete passport application certificates; if so, were they removed from the list by accident or design. (2) If by design, when and why were they rendered ineligible. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; the deletion was intentional. (2) In a statement to the Parliament on 8 December 1982 the former Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined the then Government's response to Mr Justice Stewart's Interim Report No. 2-Passports and gave details of proposed changes to passport issuing procedures. In respect of persons eligible to sign the Certification Regarding Applicant, the Government agreed that the group of categories of person entitled to provide this certification should be restricted to those persons who clearly meet the following criteria: (i) The group should be wide enough for each applicant for a passport to know at least one person in one of the categories; (ii) The categories should include people on whom passport offices can check readily and with whom they can make contact fairly easily to confirm the bona fides of the passport applicant; (iii) The categories should be limited to people whose careers would be affected if they were found to be involved in fraudulent practices. The inclusion of members of all previous categories from all States would have made the total numbers of eligible persons so large as to defeat the primary objective of the review. As a result several of the larger previous categories, such as justices of the peace, had to be excluded. The change of categories of those eligible to certify an applicant's identity is only one of a package of measures designed to counter passport abuse. For example, as a result of the recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission, the Government stated a commitment to move towards an identity check for all passport applicants. The present Government while in Opposition supported these changes and has since implemented the agreed recommendations of the Stewart Royal Commission. (Question No. 1031) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Did the Government give a commitment while in Opposition to increase expenditure on the arts (including the Australia Council) to 1975-76 levels in its first parliamentary term. (2) Is the Government instead considering diverting funds from one section of the arts which have relatively high levels of funding to those areas which have lower levels; if so, why. (3) If the 1984 Budget will be the last in the parliamentry term, will the Government honour its commitment and increase arts funding to the 1975-76 levels . Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Present legislative and institutional arrangements provide for the Government to make decisions on the overall level of funding to be provided to the Australia Council, but not for its disposition on specific grants. This is a matter for the Council and its constituent Boards. In the circumstances it is not possible for the Minister to intervene in funding decisions made, or to be made, by the Australia Council. (3) The Government's commitment envisaged the three budgets of a full parliamentary term. It is well on course with this program having taken the second step towards restoring funding to the target level in its 1984-85 Budget. (Question No. 1082) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are 63 word processing typists, 37 steno-secretaries and 76 typists employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September there are 11 word processing typists, 3 steno-secretaries and 5 typists who have been, or are off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Information relating to data processing operators has not been included. (Question No. 1091) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 23 August 1984: (1) How many word processors, stenographers and typists are employed in the Minister's Department. (2) As of 1 September 1984, how many such staff have been, or are, off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) As of 1 September 1984 there were: (a) twenty-two word processing operators ; (b) twenty-eight steno-secretaries; and (c) forty typists employed in the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. (2) As of 1 September 1984 there have been, or are, 20 such staff off work with repetition strain injury or suspected repetition strain injury. In the three months prior to 1 September 1984 the maximum number of central office keyboard staff absent at any one time because of repetition strain injuries was: (i) June-12 staff; (ii) July-15 staff; (iii) August-17 staff. In the period between the reporting of the first case in March 1983 and 1 September 1984 there has been a total in excess of 178 weeks of lost productivity, in the Department's keyboard facilities area, because of compensable repetition strain injuries. (Question No. 1129) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 10 September 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate what percentages Australia's contribution to the United Nations and its agencies represents in respect of each of the various amounts and budgets mentioned in the answer. (See answer to the House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 361, Hansard, 28 February 1984) (2) What was the total final expenditure on United Nations activities and operations for the last full year on which there is data, and using the widest definition. (3) What was Australia's total contribution and what percentage of total expenditure did Australia's contribution represent. (4) Can the Minister provide similar percentages for all member States of the United Nations. (5) Can the Minister provide a complete list of all countries or national entities e.g. Hong Kong, Taiwan, which are not members of the United Nations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The percentages of Australia's contributions to the United Nations and its agencies in respect of each of the various amounts and budgets mentioned in the answer to the House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 361 (Hansard, 28 February 1984) are as follows: (a) Australia's percentage of assessed contributions in 1983 to the United Nations multilateral organisations were- Per cent United Nations regular budget 1.57 ILO 1.82 FAO 2.24 UNESCO 1.81 IAEA 1.85 IMO 0.43 UPU 2.35 ITU 4.19 ICAO 1.94 GATT 1.35 FAO, Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia, the Far East, and South-West Pacific 6.68 International Agency for Research On Cancer 6.50 UNEP -CITES 1.57 UNESCO-Convention for the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1.81 WMO 1.79 WHO 1.80 WIPO 3.20 Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination 1.58 (b) Budget Paper No. 9 provides details of Australia's voluntary contributions to United Nations multilateral development organisations and special programs as determined within the total of Australia's annual aid appropriations for 1984-85 . The percentages of total contributions represented by voluntary contributions in 1982 (the last full year for which United Nations figures are available) were : Per cent UNDP 2.15 UNHCR 4.30 WFP 2.58 UNICEF 2.29 UNIDO 2.63 UNRWA 0 .81 UNFPA 1.19 UNITAR 1.25 UNEP 1.53 UNDP Administered Trust Funds 2.18 UN Trust Funds and Special Programs 1.92 (c) Other Australian voluntary contributions to United Nations organisations from Department of Foreign Affairs appropriations in 1982 and 1983 were: United Nations Peace and Disarmament Activities-$A50,000. Australia's contribution cannot be accurately expressed as a percentage of total contributions as other contributions were made in a variety of currencies converted at different rates at different times. Contributions are listed in United Nations documents in original currencies. IAEA Nuclear Safeguards Assistance Program- $A201,710. Australia's contribution cannot be expressed as a percentage of total contributions. Individual countries' contributions are contained in those countries' national budget papers. The IAEA budget contains only the direct contributions from each country. It does not include indirect contributions such as equipment, research and development agreements, contracts and test programs. (d) Australia's percentage contributions to United Nations peacekeeping and observer forces in 1983 were: Per cent United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) (includes cost of maintaining police contingent in Cyprus) 3.54 United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) 1.57 United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) 1 .57 Australia's contributions to the United Nations Military Observer Group ( UNMOGIP) and the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation (UNTSO), which consist of salaries and support costs of Australian Defence Force personnel serving with these bodies, cannot readily be expressed as percentages of total contributions. (2) The total final expenditure on United Nations activities and operations for 1982 (the last full year for which there is data) is based on total assessed and voluntary contributions by United Nations member states and non-member states which were $US4,806,172,000. Assessed contributions were $US1,709,754,000 and voluntary contributions were $US3,096,418,200. (3) Australia's contribution for 1982 (the last full year for which there is data) was $US106,438,400 comprising $US33,387,400 for assessed contributions and $US73,051,000 for voluntary contributions. This represents 2.21 per cent of total contributions. (4) No. Assessed and voluntary contributions by other members of the United Nations vary with each organisation. With the range of organisations, programs, special funds and emergency appeals involved, it is not feasible to provide accurate figures. (5) Only independent states may become full members of the United Nations. There are a number of States (e.g. Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Holy See, Nauru, Switzerland, Tonga, Tuvalu) which, for differing reasons, are not members of the United Nations although they participate in the work of various United Nations programs or specialised agencies. There are, in addition, a number of entities which have some characteristics of nation States and also take part in the work of United Nations programs and the specialised agencies, but cannot be members of the United Nations. There are some other entities which are the subject of international dispute and may be recognised as independent states by some UN members and not by others, and are not members of the United Nations. In addition, a number of national liberation movements claiming to represent particular territories are given observer, but not member, status in the United Nations. (Question No. 1157) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Is legal action being taken by Kalamazoo (Australia) Pty Ltd against small businesses in various Australian States. (2) Is this action being taken exclusively against small businesses and have large national and multi-national companies been producing and marketing the same forms which are subject to the current action for a considerably longer period without any legal action being taken. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. I am advised that Kalamazoo has initiated legal action against a number of firms. However, I understand that the firms are based only in Queensland. (2) I have received representations which suggest an affirmative response to the honourable senator's question. However as the case is a private legal action I am unable to confirm the information supplied to me. The honourable senator may recall that when this matter was raised in a parliamentary question on 23 March 1984 I advised that I had referred the matter to my colleague the Attorney-General for his consideration. As the Attorney- General indicated in his answer to Question No. 742 of 28 March 1984 the matter has been referred to the Trade Practices Commission. The Commission is undertaking preliminary investigations which have not yet been completed. (Question No. 1159) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) What was the position of the Australian representative on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the decision to grant South Africa a $1.1 billion loan in December 1982. (2) Did Pretoria increase 'defence' spending by $1 billion in 1983. (3) Has the United States Congress subsequently instructed the United States' representatives on the IMF to 'actively oppose' further loans to countries practicing apartheid, despite its view that the IMF should base its decisions purely on economic considerations; if so, and given the ALP's opposition to apartheid, will the Australian Government be taking the same 'actively oppose' position in the IMF if further loans are applied for by South Africa. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The IMF loan referred to was a one year stand-by credit facility of SDR 364 million and a Compensatory Financing Facility of SDR 636 million (a total of approximately $1.1 billion) approved by the IMF Executive Board on 3 November 1982. The Australian Executive Director to the IMF did not speak on this particular occasion as there was already a substantial majority in favour of the loans. On this occasion no formal voting took place, as is the case with most IMF Board decisions. In any event, as the Australian Executive Director represents a constituency comprising eight other nations, the position adopted by the Executive Director on particular issues within the Executive Board does not solely reflect the views of the Australian Government. (2) According to South African Government figures, South Africa's actual defence expenditure in 1982-83 was Rand 3,128 million (approximately $A2,157.24 million). This expenditure was an increase of Rand 563 million (approximately $ A388.28 million) over South Africa's actual defence expenditure in 1981-82 of Rand 2,565 million (approximately $A1,769.96 million). South Africa's defence expenditure in 1983-84 was Rand 3,349.06 million (approximately $A2,309.7 million) an increase of Rand 221.60 million (approximately $A152.46 million) over 1982-83 defence expenditure. (3) In November 1983, United States legislation consenting to the quota increase proposed under the Eighth General Review of Quotas was passed. This legislation includes the following provision: 'Sec. 43 (b) The Congress hereby finds that the practice of apartheid results in severe constraints on labour and capital mobility and other highly inefficient labour and capital supply rigidities which contribute to balance of payments deficits in direct contradiction of the goals of the International Monetary Fund. Therefore, the President shall instruct the United States Executive Director of the Fund to actively oppose any facility involving use of Fund Credit by any country which practices apartheid unless the Secretary of the Treasury certifies and documents in writing, upon request, and so notifies and appears, if requested, before the Foreign Relations and Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committees of the Senate and the Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, at least twenty-one days in advance of any vote on such drawing, that such drawing: (1) would reduce the severe restraints on labour and capital mobility, through such means as increasing access to education by workers and reducing artificial constraints on worker mobility and substantial reduction of racially-based restrictions on the geographical mobility of labour; (2) would reduce other highly inefficient labour and capital supply rigidities; (3) would benefit economically the majority of the people of any country which practices apartheid; (4) is suffering from a genuine balance of payments imbalance that cannot be met by recourse to private capital markets. Should the Secretary not meet a request to appear before the aforementioned Committees at least twenty-one days in advance of any vote on any facility involving use of Fund credits by any country practicing apartheid and certify and document in writing that these four conditions have been met, the United States Executive Director shall vote against such program.' The Australian Government is not in a position to know what instructions have been given to the US Executive Director to the IMF by the United States Administration with respect to this legislation. The Australian Government will assess issues which come before the IMF Board of Governors and the Executive Board on the basis of the criteria specified in the IMF Articles of Agreement, by-laws, rules, et cetera, as it is obliged to do. (Question No. 1160) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) What is the quantity of petroleum products currently exported to South Africa by Australia. (2) Is there a ban on sales of petroleum products to South Africa by all OPEC and almost all other oil producing states; if so, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs recommend that the Australian Government take a similar position. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The latest information from Government trade statistics on exports of petroleum products shows that in the period from July 1983 to June 1984, 35,918 litres of industrial fuel and marine diesel fuel, valued at $12,574, were exported from Australia to South Africa. (2) The OPEC secretariat has advised that there is no written agreement banning oil sales to South Africa. According to the OPEC secretariat, all members observe the UN General Assembly resolution calling for an embargo on economic activities with South Africa and specifically on oil supplies. Of the policies pursued by the other non-OPEC oil exporters the following information has been obtained: It is British policy to sell state-controlled oil only to countries which are members of the OECD, EEC, or IEA (International Energy Agency). Britain does not , however, attempt to prevent private oil companies which operate in Britain from selling oil to South Africa if they are able to do so. The Soviet Union has advised that it unequivocally supports the UN embargo on economic ties with South Africa. The Norwegian Government has requested producing companies to refrain from selling oil to South Africa and all have apparently agreed to this request. The Australian Government would support comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa, endorsed by the UN Security Council and applied by South Africa's major trading partners. In the absence of such sanctions the Government permits normal commercial relations with South Africa but without avoidable official assistance. In accordance with that policy the Government does not restrict the sale of petroleum products to South Africa. (Question No. 1167) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 1984: (1) Has the Australian Embassy in Manila investigated the facts surrounding an incident at a demonstration held in Manila on 27 September 1984 to protest the Philippines Government's use of violence against demonstrators, in which a young man, Fidel Nemenzo, was shot in the back when the army fired into the crowd, given reports that at least 11 people have been tortured and killed, that one of the people shot has died, and that ice picks were used as instruments of torture . (2) Is the Australian Government now prepared to condemn the Government of the Philippines for its consistent use of brutal violence against people exercising their democratic rights. (3) Will the Australian Government continue to give military aid to the Philippines (estimated last year to be worth $1.6 million), given that Professor Richard Simbulan, Professor of Politics at the University of the Philippines, said in Australia earlier this year that the Philippines' defence budget is only sufficient to cover the salaries and running costs of the soldiers, so that the Philippines is effectively armed by foreign military aid. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Australian Embassy in Manila has advised that the demonstration held on 27 September resulted in the death of one bystander. In addition several bodies were found the day after the demonstration. A large number of people were injured and several arrests were made. One of those injured in the demonstration was Fidel Nemenzo, son of Dr Francisco Nemenzo, who is currently at the Australian National University on a fellowship. Fidel Nemenzo is now in a satisfactory condition. The National Assembly has unanimously condemned the violence and instituted an investigation. (2) The Australian Government has been paying close attention to recent developments in the Philippines. Reports of growing differences between the Government and important sections of the community, including the Church, are a matter of particular concern. It is apparent that there is a growing demand within the Philippines for political reform. The Government hopes that these demands can be resolved peacefully and constructively and with respect for democratic processes and human rights. (3) Australia has a small defence co-operation program (DCP) with the Philippines which has increased-from $0.804m in 1979-80 to $1.66m in 1983-84. DCP expenditure since 1979-80 has remained about the same both in real terms and as a proportion of the overall Defence Co-operation Program-3.4 per cent. No weapons or armaments are provided to the Philippines under the DCP, which, with the Singapore DCP, is the smallest in South East Asia. The Government is aware of criticisms that the DCP with the Philippines contributes to, or exacerbates, human rights problems in that country. The Program comprises mostly training and technical advisory assistance related to Australian equipment previously supplied under the Program. In 1983-84 the DCP provided maintenance assistance for 12 Nomad aircraft; technical assistance for Australian-made small-arms target equipment (DART); medical kits; and the provision of training in Australia. We would hope that exposure of overseas trainees to Australian military institutions and traditions and to the attitudes of the broader Australian community during training courses in Australia will in the longer term help to increase awareness of human rights issues and thus reduce abuses. (Question No. 1183) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: In respect of the Minister's Department and statutory authorities responsible to the Minister: (a) how many motor vehicles did they own before 2 March 1983; (b) how many motor vehicles do they now own; (c) how many motor vehicles have they purchased since 2 March 1983; (d) what type, size and make of motor vehicles have they purchased; (e) what was the individual and total cost of these vehicles; and (f) for what purpose were the vehicles purchased. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Department of Foreign Affairs does not own any motor vehicles and has not purchased any. The answer to the honourable senator's questions therefore is: (a) Nil. (b) Nil. (c) Nil. (d) n.a. (e) n.a. (f) n.a. (Question No. 1190) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, 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 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) to (f) The Department and the statutory authority responsible to me have neither bought nor currently own any motor vehicles. They are all on hire from the Department of Administrative Services. (Question No. 1199) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, 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 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 Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: The Department and some statutory authorities hire all of their motor vehicles from the Department of Administrative Services which has advised that, in respect of vehicles on hire, the Minister for Administrative Services will respond on behalf of all Ministers. The following details are provided in respect of statutory authorities which own their motor vehicles. (i) Australian Bicentennial Authority (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the Authority before 2 March 1983 was 10. (b) The number of motor vehicles currently owned is 16. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 15. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicles which were purchased is included in the answer to (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicles is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Station Wagon 4144 Holden 12,161.00 Station Wagon 1600 Holden 8,630.00 Station Wagon 4144 Holden 12,271.00 Sedan 5000 Holden 13,571.33 Station Wagon 5000 Holden 12,029.33 Sedan 1600 Holden 8,898.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 9,550.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 11,349.00 Sedan 3300 Falcon 9,259.02 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 10,977.00 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 10,505.25 Sedan 3300 Holden 9,033.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 11,007.88 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 12,452.50 Sedan 3300 Holden 10,694.00 Total 162,388.31 (f) The vehicles have been purchased to provide transport, delivery and related services within the States and Territories in which the Authority has offices. (ii) Australian Film Commission (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the Commission before 2 March 1983 was 7. (b) The number of motor vehicles currently owned is 9. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 8. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicles which were purchased is included in the answer (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicles is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Sedan 2000 Nissan 8,687.00 Sedan 4100 Fairmont 13,546.90 Station Wagon (x5) 2000 Nissan 46,669.00 (9,333.80 each) Station Wagon 2000 Lonsdale 13,659.00 (for the London office) Total 82,561.90 (f) One vehicle is provided for the Chief Executive's use, whilst the remaining vehicles are used by branch heads and staff of the Commission at the Commission' s office at North Sydney, Film Australia and at the two overseas offices for official business. (iii) Australian Film and Television School (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the school before 2 March 1983 was 2. (b) The number of motor vehicles currently owned is 2. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 1. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicles which were purchased is included in the answer to (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicles is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Sedan 4100 Fairlane 14,085.00 (f) The vehicle was purchased on trade-in of the Director's vehicle and is used for official purposes only. (iv) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the Authority before 2 March 1983 was 2. (b) The number of motor vehicles currently owned is 2. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 2. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicles which were purchased is included in the answer to (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicles is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Station Wagon 4100 Ford 10,880.87 Station Wagon 2000 Toyota 10,697.10 Total 21,577.97 (f) The vehicles were purchased for extension/field duties, use by the Chairman and senior officers, collection and delivery of stores and other official Authority business. (v) Office of the Supervising Scientist (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the Office before 2 March 1983 was 23 , consisting of: Airboats 2 Trikes 4 Odyssey 1 Boats 16 (b) The number of motor vehicles now owned is 23. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 2. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicles which were purchased is included in the answer to (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicle is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Trike (x2) 185 Honda 2,724.00 (1,362 each) (f) The vehicles were purchased for research purposes in the Alligator Rivers region. (vi) Australian Parks and Wildlife Services (a) The number of motor vehicles owned by the service before 2 March 1983 was 77 and includes tractors, fire fighting vehicle et cetera. (b) The number of motor vehicles currently owned is 99. (c) The number of motor vehicles purchased since 2 March 1983 was 24. (d) The type, size and make of motor vehicle which were purchased is included in the answer to (e). (e) The individual and the total cost of the motor vehicle is as follows: Type Size Make Cost (CC's) $ Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 7,029.00 Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 7,139.00 Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 7,130.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 10,449.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 9,616.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 9,725.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 9,725.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 9,725.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 12,106.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 10,182.00 Landcruiser 4000 Toyota 13,574.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 8,696.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 9,481.00 Sedan 3300 Holden 9,863.00 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 8,696.00 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 8,541.00 Station Wagon 3300 Holden 8,541.00 Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 6,705.00 4 WD-Utility 1800 Subaru 6,794.00 Station Wagon 1800 Nissan 6,845.00 Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 9,654.00 Hilux-Utility 2200 Toyota 8,729.00 Station Wagon 4100 Ford 10,310.00 Utility 1800 Subaru 7,640.00 Total 216,895.00 (f) The vehicles were purchased primarily for park management functions at Kakadu, Uluru National Parks and on Norfolk Island. (Question No. 1207) Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 October 1984: (i) How many and which posts have been the subject of investigations since the establishment of the new task force set up within the Department of Foreign Affairs to investigate allegations of financial irregularities. (ii) What were the results of those investigations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (i) I can confirm that a number of overseas posts operated by my Department have been the subject of investigation following allegations of possible financial irregularities. Investigations have been completed and the question of what legal or administrative actions, if any, should follow is currently under active consideration. It would be inappropriate to make any further comment on these matters at this stage. (Question No. 1213) Senator McIntosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October: Will the Australian Government make clear its commitment to the Contadora draft peace treaty already endorsed by Nicaragua, given recent reports which indicated that 4 Contadora group countries (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica) are being pressed by the United States administration not to sign the draft treaty unless substantial amendments to it are made (see question without notice and answer thereto, Hansard, 4 October 1984, page 1210). Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In answer to Senator McIntosh's question of 4 October, the Attorney-General noted that I made a public statement calling for the implementation of the revised Contadora treaty during my recent visit to Central America. Australia's position has since been discussed with a number of concerned governments. (Question No. 1223) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 October 1984: (1) Is the Lefkoniko Airport in Cyprus being readied for the United States Rapid Deployment Force. (2) Is this airport in that part of Cyprus which is currently under Turkish control. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am not aware of any indication that the United States intends to use Lefkoniko for the RDF. (2) Yes. Lefkoniko is in the northern sector of Cyprus which is currently under Turkish Cypriot control. (Question No. 1228) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 17 October 1984: (1) Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to my previous two questions concerning recruitment of professional killers (see answers to Question No. 562, Hansard, 2 April 1984, page 1078 and Question No. 253, Hansard, 1 November 1983, page 2031) wherein, inter alia, he said of the Soldiers of Fortune magazine '. . . the Australian circulation is 2,600 copies per issue . . .'. (2) Does the Australian Government, in addition to implementing Australia's anti-mercenary laws in the provisions of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978, oppose the employment and recruitment of mercenaries in foreign countries for operations in other countries; if not why not. (3) Did the evening television news on ATN Channel 7 in Sydney, on 3 October 1984, include a report and an interview with United States Senator Christopher Dodd concerning the employment and open public recruitment of significant numbers of mercenaries by Mr Robert Brown and the other principles of the American magazine Soldiers of Fortune and did the report indicate that the recruitment of these professional killers was carried out in the name of that magazine and its affiliated organisation(s). (4) Did the news report also indicate that: (a) the recruited mercenaries' main task was to overthrow various Central American and other governments; and (b) the recruitment was in clear breach of American foreign and domestic policies and Congressional decisions. (5) Was the report accurate and can the Minister ascertain the number of professional killers involved. (6) Does the June 1984 issue of the Soldier of Fortune magazine, which has been distributed in Australia contain, in addition to the promotion of products for mercenaries and articles encouraging the employment and recruitment of professional killers, inter alia, the following advertisements; (a) 'Merc for hire, 43, work alone, short term only. Bounty hunting. Will take commission job. Jim, P.O. Box 415, FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 (82)', page 105; (b) 'Ex platoon leader, USMC Vietnam looking for high risk, good paying work overseas. Honest. Dependable. Fearless. Don, (913) 462 3585 (82)', page 106; (c) 'Bounty hunting, legal for anyone and very profitable! For legal statutes and employment information send $2 and SASE. Rush orders $3 cash. Research Unlimited, Box 90, DEPEW, NY 14043 (81)', page 107; (d) 'Merc for hire, highly skilled and professional individual or team available for high risk contract. All offers considered and held strictly confidential. Immediate response and action world wide. NG, Box 302, CAPE MAY COURT HOUSE, NJ 08210', 108; and (e) 'Merc for hire, novice, Marine Viet Vet, demo, age 37, jungle preferred. 608 Barnegat Blvd, BEACHWOOD, NJ 08722', page 109; and do other recent issues contain similar material. (7) If the answer to (6) above is yes, will the Minister immediately write to Mr John Hepworth, Chairman, Gordon and Gotch Ltd, 114 William Street, Melbourne, telephone 67 9901 (Australian distributors of Soldiers of Fortune) and request the company to refrain from distributing the magazine in Australia, for so long as the magazine, its principles and its front affiliated organisations(s) are associated with the employment and recruitment of professional killers, as well as asking whether, and if so when; (a) the Board of Directors (Messrs Hepworth, Scott, Stewart, Dowling, Lapthorn, Nealey and Skurrie); and (b) the shareholders of Gordon and Gotch, have specifically approved the distribution and sale of the magazine in Australia and the related activities of Mr Robert Brown and his associates; if not, why not. (8) What revenue has Gordon and Gotch received for the sale of this magazine since it first undertook distribution and what amount was transmitted from Australia to the American publishers for the same period. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Yes. (3) to (5) I did not see the television news report referred to, and as it related to matters within the United States as the honourable senator suggests, I cannot vouch for its accuracy or otherwise. (6) and (7) The material quoted as appearing in the June 1984 edition of Soldier of Fortune magazine does not appear to be in contravention of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978. It is therefore not my intention to write to the distributors. (8) I suggest this information be sought directly from the publishers. (Question No. 1229) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 October 1984: Is the reference to self-determination contained in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs 1984 annual report, which on page 2 mentions the Government's policy of self-determination for Aboriginal people, but fails to provide any working definition of this policy, a purely cosmetic effort to convince the Aboriginal people that justice is being done, when in actual fact the implementation of genuine self determination would be untenable to the conservative forces in Australian society and, in particular, to the vested interests which a self-determination policy would necessarily compromise, if not abrogate. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government accepts that the principle of self-determination is fundamental to the development of programs and policies in Aboriginal Affairs. The means by which this principle operates are determined from time to time in consultation with Aboriginal people themselves. Senator Ryan —On 19 October 1984, (Hansard, pages 2072-2073) Senator Foreman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment , a question without notice concerning government consideration of changes to consumer protection laws to provide for the mandatory recall or modification of unsafe goods. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The need to develop mandatory product recall powers has been recognised by Commonwealth, State and Territory Consumer Affairs Ministers. Proposals for the development of both voluntary and mandatory arrangements for the recall or modification of unsafe products are being considered by the Government. A discussion paper which outlines a number of options for product recall is being developed and will be released for public comment in the early part of next year. In relation to the safety of buoyancy vests and lifejackets, the Commonwealth/ State Consumer Products Advisory Committee is currently investigating the need to introduce a standard to ensure an adequate level of protection for the Australian consumer. Relevant industry sectors have been asked to provide any information they may have on the safety of products currently available on the market. To date no such information has been provided to me or my Department which would demonstrate that the buoyancy vests and lifejackets available in Australia are unsafe.