Friday, 22 February 1985 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: Nuclear Disarmament To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Bill'. A Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia effectively declaring Australia a 'Nuclear Weapons Free Zone' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 893 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we support Senator Chipp's 'Australian Waters (Nuclear Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions) Bill 1984'. A Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships, and of vessels carrying nuclear weapons, through Australian waters or in the airspace over them, effectively declaring Australia a 'Nuclear Weapons Free Zone'. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Senators, regardless of political affiliations, support this Bill. Not just for our sake but for our children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 514 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament House assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Labor Party: 'is committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons and the ultimate achievement of general and complete disarmament' (ALP Platform 1984, 12E); and will: 'promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans' (ALP Platform 1984, 12E.34); 'oppose the development and acquisition of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological or other weapons of mass destruction for Australia's Armed Forces; nor permit any foreign government to station such weapons on Australian soil' (ALP Platform 1984, 12F.41); and 'oppose the storage of nuclear weapons on Australian territory and the staging of operations involving nuclear weapons from Australian territory' (ALP Platform 1984, 12F.48). Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all Federal representatives of the Labor Government, and Federal representatives of all other political parties including independents, vote for Senator Chipp's Nuclear Weapons Prohibitions Bill 1984, the passage of which would effectively make Australia a nuclear weapons free zone and would leave no doubt as to the present Government's stated commitment to disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 62 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they so wish to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 724 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack - itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses - represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack (from 506 citizens). The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm. (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes. (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices. (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals. (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafting Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australian respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 26 citizens), Hamer (from 18 citizens), Messner (from 113 citizens) and Teague (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of rest homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that rest homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Teague (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we express our concern for the future of our nation's character, faith, morals and social services in: (1) The Australian Broadcasting Commission's resolve to grant homosexual employees practising sodomy and employees who live in de facto marriage relationship such allowances and benefits as are similar to married employees. We are concerned that the acceptance of such relationships is against the guidance of Almighty God and formulated decisions upheld in our long British heritage and Australian society and as being against the true welfare of the people of Australia. (2) We express our concern as to this Parliament's decision to recognise de facto relationships as being an equivalent to the state of marriage with full entitlements pertaining thereto. We raise to question the validity to such relationships in (1) and (2), in that it is illogical argument to deduce that licence can be given to acts of abomination (sinfulness) on the grounds of discrimination. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government reject such proposed laws and benefits pertaining from them. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 86 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Upon evidence from within Australia and overseas, the introduction of plant variety rights legislation would not be in Australia's best interests because: 1. Plant genetic resources should remain a public resource; 2. Australia's public plant breeding programmes could be undermined; 3. Such legislation may lead to a reduction in the genetic diversity of commercial varieties; 4. There is reason to fear that choices of seed and other plant propagation materials may be restricted due to the controls placed on their use; 5. Plant varietal rights legislation could lead to higher costs for the grower, the consumer, the plant breeder and the taxpayer; 6. Plant variety rights will lead to a further increase in foreign control of Australia's plant genetic resources. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament ensure that it recognises the widespread public opposition to PVR and promote alternative means of royalty collection for plant breeders. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 51 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that: Woorabinda Aboriginal Reserve (population over 600), west of Rockhampton Queensland, is severely isolated because of 34 kms of unsealed road which can become impassable in wet weather, extremely high telephone installation charges (over $1 100 per phone) being asked by Telecom Australia, and poor radio and television reception. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government will: (a) provide funds to the Duaringa Shire Council to seal the 34 kms of the Duaringa-Bauhinia Downs road which is now unsealed, and which services Woorabinda; and (b) call on Telecom Australia to provide telephone installations at a much more reasonable cost. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 282 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 Robertson (from 546 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show that: We deplore and oppose the decision of the Federal Government in legislating to allow the importation and distribution of hard-core pornographic video films and material into Australia and the social consequences of this action particularly for our children. We request the Federal Government to re-enact immediately the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and sale of this hard-core pornographic material, until the Enquiry 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 Macklin (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned, having great concern because of the spread of moral pollution in our nation call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation: 1. To provide strict controls over importation, production, sale, hire or mailing of video-cassettes with the open sale of only G, PG, and M rated video-cassettes; and the total prohibition of the sale of R rated video-cassettes so that R rated films can only be viewed in an adult theatre by persons over 18 years. We totally reject the concept of ''X'' rated video-cassettes which would allow the legal sale of hard-core pornographic films for screening in the homes of our nation, which endanger our children. 2. To dramatically improve the Federal Attorney-General's Guidelines for Classification of Video tapes/discs which restrict the importation, production, sale or hire, screening in private homes and mailing by Australia Post so as to include the total prohibition of any pornographic, obscene or blasphemous video cassette, or film containing child pornography, bestiality, sodomy, group sex, violent sex acts with women, such as rape and pack rape, sadism and torture, etc. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will protect our society, especially women and children from moral pollution and its harmful effects. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 889 citizens), Button (from 19 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 1,369 citizens), Gareth Evans (from 95 citizens), Gietzelt (from 271 citizens), Robertson (from 772 citizens), Scott (from 20 citizens) and Sibraa (from 413 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Government's retirement incomes policies are piecemeal, inequitable, and discriminate against people who save towards achieving reasonable self-reliance in their retirement; and 2. The Government's assets test legislation is particularly inequitable and its effects are especially discriminatory against farmers. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to: 1. repeal the assets test legislation; 2. institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems; and 3. following the receipt of the report of such an inquiry implement a retirement incomes policy which is fair and equitable, encourages self-provision and will be non-discriminatory in its operation and impact. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematograph Films) regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law: the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure: that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; that further measure be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; that, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable Members of the Australian Federal Parliament. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia; namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your Petitioners Therefore Pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Townley (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth and in concern for peace support: 1. a move towards unity, co-operation and peaceful co-existence amongst all peoples of the earth. We pledge our agreement to an immediate bilateral freeze of the development and deployment of all nuclear weapons and to speed negotiations to dismantle all such weapons of mass destruction under the supervision of a neutral peace-keeping force. 2. the establishment of a Ministry for Peace to focus our energies towards non-violent resolution of world conflicts, encouraging our government to pursue its own independent policies in foreign affairs, non-aligned to any one polarity, with the aim of bringing about lasting and peaceful co-existence worldwide. 3. the establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to examine and debate all submissions by way of petitions and proposals and to assist in the creation of the Ministry for Peace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 569 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the presidential gallery of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Ian Tuxworth, MLA. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend a cordial and hearty welcome to Canberra to the Chief Minister. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (a) that the Hawke Labor Government has consistently demonstrated its lack of concern for the care of the aged since its election in March 1983 and the Senate calls upon the Government to immediately state: (i) when the Office of Aged Care will be established; (ii) what consultation the Government intends to undertake with voluntary and other community organisations with regard to the implementation of the Home and Community Care program (HACC); (iii) the status of its negotiations with the States on the HACC cost sharing program; (iv) how much money in addition to present expenditures on Commonwealth programs will be injected into the HACC program by the Federal Government; and (b) draws the Government's attention to the growing disquiet amongst community groups about the lack of progress with the HACC program and the disillusionment with reports that little or no extra funds will be made available for the program, contrary to the misleading statements by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. The PRESIDENT —As Leader of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the Thirtieth Commonwealth Parliament Association Conference held in Douglas, Isle of Man, in September-October 1984, I present the report of the Delegation. I am pleased to inform the Senate that the Douglas Conference was a most successful conference, both for the Association generally and from the point of view of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch. In terms of the Association the most significant matter was the continuation of consideration of the report of the Working Party on the CPA and the future. Certain decisions were made by the General Assembly meeting in Nairobi in 1983 and remaining matters were considered most thoroughly in Douglas, culminating in the decision of the Conference, by an overwhelming majority, to adopt the Working Party report. Honourable senators will recall that the Commonwealth of Australia Branch was heavily involved in the decision to establish the Working Party, and played a major role in its deliberations. Members of the Delegation were heavily involved in consideration of the report by the Conference. The adoption of the report will be very important for the future of the Association, covering as it does such matters as representation on the Executive Committee and means by which savings in expenditure could be achieved in the operation of the Association. Honourable senators should also be aware that the new Chairman of the Executive Committee is the distinguished Speaker of the Indian Lok Sabha, Dr the Hon. Bal Ram Jakhar, with whom I had the honour to work closely on the Working Party and who is a long-serving member of the Association. The Conference was most productive in that it enabled some 188 delegates and committee members representing 95 branches of the Commonwealth to debate and discuss a wide range of topical parliamentary, economic, governmental and social issues. The efforts of the officers of the Isle of Man Branch, the members of Tynwald who participated so wholeheartedly in conference activities and of the Manx people all combined in ensuring an interesting and fruitful conference. On behalf of myself, my fellow delegates and our spouses I express great appreciation of the generosity and hospitality of our hosts. I would also like to place on record my thanks for the support, assistance and industrious participation of my fellow Australian delegates, from the Commonwealth and State parliaments and from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I can say, without hesitation, that the Australian Delegation took an active part in conference debates and in the deliberations of the General Assembly, and I appreciate the efforts of all my colleagues. They and their spouses were all great ambassadors for Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Certain consumer electronic equipment and components-IAC Report 2. Telecommunications and related equipment and parts-IAC Report 3. Separate articles direction No. 1 of the Customs Tariff-IAC Report 4. Canberra Development Board-Annual Report 1983-84 5. Primary Industry Bank-7th Report on the Operation of Part 11 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977-pursuant to section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977 6. Department of Aviation-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920 7. Commonwealth Grants Commission-Report 1984-pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 8. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1947 9. Department of Primary Industry-Annual Report 1983-84 10. Australian Meat Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 11. Cotton Research Committee-Annual Report for the period 31 December 1982 to 30 June 1984-pursuant to section 24 of the Cotton Research Act 1982 12. Australian Dairy Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972 13. Australian Wine Research Institute-Annual Report 1983-84 14. Dried Fruits Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971 15. Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement 1979 16. Department of Transport-Annual Report 1983-84 17. Department of Industry and Commerce-Annual Report 1983-84 18. The National Standards Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 19C of the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1960 19. Attorney-General's Department and Office of Parliamentary Counsel-Annual Report 1983-84. The Annual Report of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is tabled pursuant to section 16A of the Parliamentary Counsel Act 20. Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions-Annual Report 1984-pursuant to section 33 (1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1984 21. Administrative Review Council-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 22. Australian Overseas Project Corporation-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Project Corporation Act 1978 23. Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs-Final Report 24. Australian Tourist Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 25. Health Insurance Commission-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 26. Director-General of Health-Annual Report 1983-84 27. Medical Research-Annual Report 1983-Report by the National Health and Medical Research Council-pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 28. Tobacco Industry Trust Account-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955 29. Oilseeds Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977 30. Honey Research Committee-Annual Report 1983-84-pursuant to section 18 of the Honey Research Act 1980 Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-In making this statement I am continuing the Government's practice of announcing the legislation program at the start of each period of sittings to provide a basis for informed-hopefully, informed-and open public debate about major national issues. The program includes many of the matters outlined by the Governor-General in his Speech at the opening of Parliament, which of course encompassed the Government's plans for the whole of the Fifty-fourth Parliament. Senator Lajovic —The Thirty-fourth Parliament. Senator BUTTON —I thank Senator Lajovic for his interjection. It was very helpful. The Government consistently demonstrated in the last Parliament its willingness to undertake urgent social reform resulting from years of neglect by the previous Government and its determination to tackle the issues of economic management placed for too long in the too hard basket. The Government will continue to consolidate this program during the term of this Parliament. The Government will continue its major industry restructuring and assistance measures, some of which have already been announced and extensively canvassed. These will include legislation to give effect to the Government's decision to allocate $150m under the motor vehicles and components development grants scheme to encourage development of locally designed components. Senator Messner —Just after they have had a record year. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator's Party approved it. Approval of this item was in his Party's policy speech. Senator Chaney —You are stealing our policy now, are you? Senator BUTTON —You stole ours. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is making an important ministerial statement. I expect him to be heard in silence. Senator BUTTON —As well, the Government will continue progress in instituting effective administration of new management programs for the fishing industry, provide new organisational and administrative arrangements for rural industry research funds and reduce the number of Acts currently applying to those funds as part of an overall objective of rationalising primary industry legislation and provide financial assistance for soil conservation to the States. The Government also hopes to introduce legislation detailing new marketing arrangements for the dairy industry and marketing and financing arrangements for the dried fruits industry. The Government will be authorising a series of major packages revising the legislation dealing with the exploration and exploitation of Australia's off-shore oil fields. We will introduce off-shore petroleum exploration permits on the basis of a cash bidding system and introduce retention leases to provide greater security of tenure over petroleum discoveries regarded as currently non-commercial. As a first step towards implementing the resource rent tax measures announced last year, the Government will remove royalties payments from petroleum production in the area adjacent to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. An Australian land transport program will be established to provide financial assistance for roads to the States and Territories to replace the current Roads Grants Act, which expires on 30 June this year. At the same time the Government will endeavour to introduce complementary legislation to assist and encourage implementation by the States and Territories of the recommendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry-the May report-relating to the registration of interstate commercial freight vehicles and operators. The Government intends to introduce major communications legislation including Bills to implement recommendations of the Vincent Review of Allegations against Telecom to ensure prevention of illegal use of the network; make provision for the regional commercial satellite service; undertake a major revision of the Broadcasting and Television Act to make it service-based; and provide a firm legislative underpinning for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's powers to determine program and advertising standards. As indicated in the Governor-General's Speech, we do not intend to diminish the pressure on those people and companies attempting to avoid their taxation obligations: we will reintroduce the bottom of the harbour Bills rejected by the Opposition in the last Parliament; we will strengthen and introduce further anti-tax avoidance measures; and the trust stripping Bills that lapsed on dissolution of the House last October will be reintroduced. To consolidate our policies in the financial sector we will reintroduce the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill to lift the individual shareholdings limit in banking institutions from 10 to 15 per cent, while providing for exemptions in order to assist the entry of new banks in 1985. If it proves necessary in the expanded banking environment, we will also provide for formal powers for the administration and enforcement of prudent supervision of banks. As well, Bills will be introduced to improve the effectiveness and the administration of bankruptcy legislation, reduce accounting and annual reporting obligations for most companies, and bring up to date the laws applicable to cheques. We plan to introduce significant health, welfare and community services legislation to- provide for a Commonwealth-State agreement concerning the supported accommodation assistance program which will provide support for those in crisis situations and the longer term chronically homeless, as well as enabling older people to become more independent and less reliant on institutional care define Commonwealth services for disabled people; give effect to a Commonwealth-State agreement for a new home and community care program; alter drug pricing arrangements; ensure the continued protection of the community rating health insurance system; provide hepatitis B vaccinations to babies at risk; establish a new tribunal to determine medical overservicing; and implement recommendations of the interim consultative committee on the report of the Penington Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. The Government will also introduce a Bill to bring about a consolidation of all veterans' entitlements legislation. In the education sphere we will introduce Bills to provide adjustments to the grants for the States and the Northern Territory in line with cost supplementation arrangements. The student loans legislation of the previous Government will also be repealed. The Government will introduce legislation to update Australian extradition legislation, following a thorough review of this area. In addition to the usual Appropriation and Supply Bills, the Government intends introducing Bills to- cover development of structures for tourist purposes beyond territorial sea limits; give effect to the Government's decision to transfer Ayers Rock to the Aboriginal traditional owners on the basis of a lease back to the Commonwealth to continue its operation as a national park; facilitate the recognition in Australia of overseas marriages; clarify the interaction of Commonwealth and State laws relating to children born as a result of in vitreo fertilisation and related procedures; establish on a statutory basis the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission; provide for dual administration of the Quarantine Act between the Ministers for Health and Primary Industry; provide for inwards duty free shopping for overseas travellers; extensively revise provisions for the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth; create a travel agents national compensation fund to reimburse consumers if travel agents' businesses fail; establish the Australian Sports Commission on a statutory basis; and restructure the National Capital Development Commission and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. In addition, the usual Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will include a number of matters of minor significance. As always, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation, and pressure on the Parliamentary Counsel's time and resources may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. In addition, the Government may still consider other measures which could result in legislation in the current sittings. However, the program I have outlined continues the direction of reform established by this Government in the previous Parliament. I commend the Government's program to the Senate and look forward to the assistance of honourable senators in its implementation. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.20) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. The Opposition welcomes the practice of announcing the legislative program at the start of each period of sittings. There was a traditional illusion that this was done by the Governor-General when he sat in this place, but the politicisation of the Governor-General's Speech gave us very little guidance of what specifically the Government has in mind for this session. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) has now told us that we can expect a range of legislation to meet the rhetoric. I must say that the statement is rather more like one which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would make because it smacks of very great self-congratulation, particularly in the early paragraphs. I refer to Senator Button's comments about the Government's willingness to undertake urgent social reform resulting from years of neglect by the previous Government. I remember what George Orwell had to say about the use of English by politicians. I suppose I can put it very shortly by saying that when one sets out to bomb a village one calls it pacification. I suppose the 150,000 or more pensioners who have lost pensions under this Government-the people who were promised by the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that they would not lose dollars out of their pension cheques-might not regard that as a matter for urgent social reform. The superannuitants who are paying tax on their lump sum superannuation might not regard that as a matter for urgent social reform either. I might add that the many taxpayers who are paying 46c in the dollar on their marginal dollars probably do not regard that as a matter for urgent social reform. I think that an awful lot of Australians would regard that as a ludicrous statement, as the Opposition regards it. I find it extraordinary that the Minister can stand in his place and talk about the determination of the Government to tackle the issues of economic management which have been placed for too long in the too-hard basket. The Minister used as his shield from criticism readiness to admit the difficulties that face the Australian economy. In the past I have welcomed that readiness. He is prepared to come into the Senate and say that one of the difficulties which exist in this country, in trying to advance the economy, concern some of the labour practices which inhibit efficiency and a trade union movement which is prepared to destroy the coal export industries of this country and to destroy many other industries. Over recent months there has been a series of strikes which have gone to the efficiency of Australia and which have reduced our efficiency, our competitiveness and our economy. There is not much evidence in the statement from the Minister-there was no evidence from the statement that was put down on the Government's behalf by the Governor-General yesterday-that there was any determination to tackle that fundamental issue of economic management which has certainly been placed for far too long in the too-hard basket. What we have here is a mishmash of mostly minor legislative initiatives and no indication that the Government intends to tackle the substantial problems which face Australia and which have been so evident over recent months. I give notice that not all of the Government's proposed legislative initiatives are likely to receive the enthusiastic endorsement of the Opposition. Of course, the Opposition is delighted that the Government will introduce a retention lease to provide greater security of tenure over petroleum discoveries. As Senator Durack made clear in a statement yesterday, we are less pleased with the idea that the Government should introduce off-shore petroleum exploration permits on the basis of a cash bidding system. No doubt we will have a chance to debate that matter in this place and to examine it very carefully. But it is that initiative which is in line with most of the initiatives which occurred under Senator Evans's predecessor, the present Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, which inevitably resulted in a larger tax take from the resource industries during a time when they were in a state of decline. That is a matter of concern to the Opposition. It is one of the areas which we will be examining with very great care. It is interesting to see that we are to have a new tribunal to determine medical overservicing. It is good to see that the Government believes it can add yet another bureaucratic layer to the mess it has produced in the health care system to solve the problem of medical overservicing. I notice too that the Government is going to tackle one tiny element of the very difficult and vexed issue of Aboriginal land. It is going to deal with the question of Ayers Rock by legislation. In light of the Government's commitment to undertake urgent social reform which has resulted from years of neglect one might wonder why the Government is not in a position during this session to come clean with the Australian people, particularly the Aboriginal people of Australia, on just what its stance is on land rights legislation, be it national or within a State. I was somewhat shocked to find that yesterday the Governor-General could go no further on behalf of the Government than to say that the Government hoped to establish principles. We have sat here for years and listened to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, lecture us on the principles which have been adopted. I welcome the fact that we have this notice of what the Government hopes to do during this session. I make one point which I hope I can make in common with those non-Government senators who are in the Australian Democrats and the independent senator, Senator Harradine. Indeed I hope it might also be a point that the Government will acknowledge. The Leader of the Government in his speech said: . . . time and resources may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. On the history of legislative programs of this Government, and indeed previous governments, that is probably a very fair warning. I simply raise the point, which I have raised before, that I think it is utterly unsatisfactory for the Senate to have to deal with legislation which has a substantial policy content, legislation which might be of a particular technical nature, legislation which for one reason or another requires scrutiny, when we receive it too late within the current sittings to give it scrutiny and when we may have to deal with it when the House of Representatives has risen for the winter recess. I do not wish to make this point in a contentious or partisan way. I agree that the problem has arisen in the past and has been a consistent problem, but I also believe that if honourable senators look at the legislative record of the Senate it will be clear that when the opportunity is provided for proper examination it is certainly to the advantage of the Government and is to the advantage of the Australian community. Thinking back to the legislation that was introduced by Senator Walsh when he was Minister for Resources and Energy and when I had the responsibility of responding to that legislation on behalf of the Opposition, it would be fair to say that when considering two of the three major items he brought in substantial amendments were made because of difficulties that were raised after the Bills had been introduced. Those changes were made eventually with government consent because the Government could see that improvements to the legislation could be made to good effect, without damaging the intent of the Government and with a view to ensuring that the legislation was made more effective. The Senate must look to its legislative function in a very careful way. I again put the view that if the Government introduces legislation of a substantial nature, which does have substance which requires attention, we should not deal with it in a way which prevents our giving it proper attention. If that means that legislation needs to be left until the Budget session because it has been introduced too late, I believe so be it. I think we would have common ground between the Government and the Opposition in that there is over-regulation in this country. That seems to have been embraced to some extent by the Government. Often bad legislation is a form of over-regulation and unnecessary regulation. I hope that the Senate will play its part in ensuring that the legislation which goes through this Parliament is in a satisfactory form. I say to both the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Government that we want to play a positive role in the legislative program. To do that we need time. I put the Government on notice that we will resist the rushed consideration of major items of legislation close to the end of the session. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(10.30) —I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in commending and thanking the Government for the initiative of placing before the Senate the legislation program for this session. I totally support the Leader of the Opposition as I did last year in suggesting-I put it no higher than that; I am sure he would not want to put it in the form of a threat-that the Government might not leave until the last week, particularly until after the House of Representatives has risen, important legislation. The Australian Democrats will not hesitate to amend even important legislation if members of the House of Representatives have gone home and the Senate remains sitting. The Democrats will not do what we have done in other years, as has the Liberal Party of Australia, and co-operate with the Government when it says: 'Look, the House of Representatives has risen and we want this legislation passed. You are not going to amend it, are you?'. We were nice people before, but those times are over. If there is important legislation before the Senate it will be amended regardless of whether members of the House of Representatives have gone home. Senator Peter Baume —Or left on the Notice Paper. Senator CHIPP —Or left on the Notice Paper. I am not too critical about what is in the document read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) but I want to be critical of one thing-the reference to the reintroduction of the bottom of the harbour Bills. I will speak about that in a moment. I am also very critical of, and I will speak further about, what is not in the statement. One can be quite critical about the omissions from the Government's legislative program. One of the great shams that this Government has tried to perpetrate is the necessity to introduce retrospective legislation. It is an act of hypocrisy for the Government to introduce this set of bottom of the harbour retrospective legislation in the first week of the session and for it to be prepared to say to the Liberal Party and to those Democrats who vote against it: 'Friends of tax cheats'. It is the old sort of rhetoric. Let me remind people of several things about this kind of legislation. There were people who evaded and avoided tax by certain measures. We have now had in unmistakable terms from the High Court of Australia and Mr Gyles statements that there is already provision in legislation on the statute books for the Government, if it wished, to recover most of the money and tax evaded without having to go into the area of retrospective legislation. I will not debate the philosphy of retrospective legislation now. My thoughts are well known on that subject and this is not the time for them. But it is a well known fact that a significant proportion of Government back benchers know that if the retrospective bottom of the harbour legislation were passed it certainly would catch a lot of guilty people. But they also know and have said in the Caucus that it would catch a lot of innocent people. Thousands of small businesses would go down the tube and cause massive unemployment. When these people have said in the Caucus, 'We are a bit nervous about this legislation because innocent people will suffer', they have been quietly told: 'Don't worry, the Liberals and the Democrats will knock it out in the Senate; they will catch the odium and we can be big fellows ourselves'. Senator Walsh —Nobody has said that in Caucus. That is pure fiction. Senator CHIPP —Before Senator Walsh interjects any more may he learn the first lesson of manhood and politics, namely, loyalty to his Leader instead of talking to people on a telephone and bad-mouthing his Leader. The PRESIDENT —Order! I would ask the honourable senator to stick to the matter contained in the ministerial statement. Senator CHIPP —Thank you for that, Mr President. Senator Walsh —Ask me a question about it, you pious humbug. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Walsh! Senator CHIPP —I would like to know too what the Minister said to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in London. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. Senator Walsh —I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! I have asked the Minister to withdraw the remark and he has done so. I call Senator Chipp. Senator CHIPP —Thank you for your assistance, Mr President. I do not really need it as far as Senator Walsh is concerned. The PRESIDENT —Order! I know this is the first day of the operation of the Parliament and there is a certain amount of exuberance, naturally, as I have learnt from long experience in this place. But I ask honourable senators to remember that there are an additional 12 senators in this chamber. If we are to discharge the business of the Senate and our responsibility to the community there has to be a greater degree of decorum than has existed so far this morning. Senator CHIPP —Of course, the second reason for the introduction of the bottom of the harbour Bills is to produce early the trigger for a double dissolution. Let us not mess about with words: This is the only purpose for the introduction of the Bills. It really introduces a bit of humour to the situation. Let us assume that the legislation is defeated next week and is brought back in May-if we are still sitting-or August. Is there any honourable senator in this chamber who believes that the Prime Minister of Australia, Robert James Lee Hawke, would be visiting Yarralumla this year asking for a double dissolution? That is quite ridiculous. Senator Chaney —We could block Supply. Senator CHIPP —Senator Chaney interjected in jest-I always welcome that-that we could block Supply. He could, I suppose. I take the opportunity, seeing that his interjection will be recorded in Hansard, to reiterate that under no circumstances-not even reprehensible circumstances-would the Australian Democrats ever join in the blocking of Supply. I have spoken about what was in Senator Button's speech. Let us look briefly at what was not in the speech. As the Australian Democrats tried to illustrate during the election campaign, there are four massive problems hanging over Australia like a cloud. One is the question of nuclear annihilation. Senator Townley —Oh, rubbish. Senator CHIPP —Senator Townley says that that is rubbish. Of course, what he is saying is that the threat of nuclear destruction does not hang over the human race. That gives some indication of Senator Townley's intelligence in regard to these matters. I repeat that as far as the Australian Democrats are concerned the biggest danger facing humankind is nuclear proliferation. There has been not one word in the Government's program about nuclear proliferation. On Monday the Democrats, with the assistance of the Liberal Party, will correct that. We will move-hopefully we will have the concurrence of the Government-for the suspension of Standing Orders to accommodate, in particular, those Labor senators who sent a telegram of encouragement to Mr Lange for banning the visit of nuclear ships to New Zealand. We will seek to give those honourable senators the opportunity of voting for legislation in Australia which would have the same effect of banning the visit of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships to Australian ports. There will be a very interesting vote on that occasion. Another massive problem-- Senator Georges —That is what they call the policy of entrapment. It all depends on who moves the motion. There are lots of wild statements. Senator CHIPP —I will be fascinated to see where Senator Georges places his more than reasonable posterior when the bells ring on that occasion next Monday. I will be interested to see whether it is in the chamber on that side, on this side of the chamber or outside the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Senate to maintain order. I ask the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, to confine his remarks to the ministerial statement. Senator CHIPP —Mr President, I will certainly accept your suggestion. However, I say to you with all due respect that both you and I have to deal with honourable senators such as Senator Georges. Senator Georges —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I seek to have those remarks withdrawn. I have been sitting here quite innocently and quietly and I have been provoked by the remarks made by Senator Chipp because he has enlarged his remarks to insult me. He made certain comments during the election campaign which were not accurate-I could say they were untrue-and in this place he makes insulting remarks. His purpose is obviously to cause confusion in this place. He will set out to entrap people into taking positions which are quite clear as far as they are concerned. I advise him that we will not fall for his tactics because they are merely the tactics of despair. He is endeavouring-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Georges, I ask you to state your point of order and not make a speech. Senator Georges —Mr President, I rose to ask Senator Chipp to withdraw the remarks. It will be difficult for him to withdraw the remarks because he has exposed the pattern that he will use from now on. I indicate to you, Mr President, that it will be very difficult for us not to interject if he persists in that sort of behaviour. Senator Chipp —It is going to be difficult for you all right, make no mistake. Senator Georges —I warn Senator Chipp that it will be very difficult for him. Senator Chaney —I rise on the point of order, Mr President. I would have some sympathy for the point of order if there were a standing order which stated that one should not be rude to one's opponents. But that does not appear to be part of the armoury, Mr President, that you have to enforce. It seemed to me that the substance of the point of order made by Senator Georges was that Senator Chipp might trap him into taking a stand on principle. I have been in this place for 11 years and I have never seen an Australian Labor Party member break with Caucus on principle. I do not think there is any possible substance in the point of order which has been raised by Senator Georges. Clearly, Senator Chipp can have been talking only about a hypothetical situation if he raised it at all. I think you should rule the point of order out of order and allow Senator Chipp to get on with his remarks. The PRESIDENT —I do not regard Senator Chipp's remarks as having offended standing order 418. I now call on Senator Chipp to confine his remarks to the ministerial statement which is the subject of debate. Senator CHIPP —Thank you, Mr President. Other areas that do not appear in the statement, which disappoints us, are those areas that I identified during the election campaign as being gigantic problems for Australia. We have described the nuclear cloud as being by far the greatest problem that should concern Australians. We believe that the Government has not addressed unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and particularly that kind of unemployment which is caused by structural factors rather than by economic or fiscal factors; namely, the technological revolution, robots, and the introduction of new technology, which is not a temporary phenomenon but a permanent phenomenon. As we talk there are about 89,700 kids aged between 15 and 19 who are looking for some sort of job. That is an underestimate, but that is the official figure. There are about one million people in Australia who are genuinely looking for work, who could work, and who would be prepared to work, but who are unable to find work. I do not blame this Government for that state of affairs; it is a world-wide phenomenon. It is in some part a legacy left by the previous Government. But surely when about one in every 10 people wants a job but cannot get a job, one would expect to find something in the legislative program to correct the situation. Try as I might, I cannot find anything in this statement that would immediately address that fundamental and urgent problem. I have also enumerated the question of organised crime as being a massive problem that is threatening our society. According to Mr Costigan, the estimate of profits from organised crime in Australia is now about $5,000m a year. That is not turnover; that is profit. One wonders, with profits of that magnitude, what kind of institutions in our society remain safe. A matter that is crucial to our future and the future of our children is our environment. I cannot find too much in the statement about preservation of human rights, about preservation of rain forests or about the environment in general. So while I thank the Government and Senator Button for their courtesy and helpfulness in putting down the statement, the Democrats remain vigorously critical of what is not in it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.45) —Apropos one of the matters that the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, mentioned, in respect of retrospective legislation, I notice that the ministerial statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) did not indicate that the Government has a mandate to do what it is now proposing to do. No doubt it is perfectly well aware of the constitutional procedures that ought to be followed in respect of matters such as this. There are procedures laid down in the Constitution in respect of a Bill which has been twice defeated. The Constitution provides that in order to obtain the necessary mandate and the passage through Parliament of such legislation a double dissolution be called and subsequent to the double dissolution a joint sitting of Parliament is required. If the Government wished to get this legislation through it could have done so. It could have got it through yesterday. One has only to count the numbers in the House of Representatives and the numbers here in the Senate to know that in a joint sitting of Parliament the Government would have had the numbers. If the Government were serious about this legislation and if it had followed the provisions of the Constitution, the Government would have had that legislation through. Those were just passing comments. I wish to address my brief remarks to other parts of the ministerial statement. In so doing I point out that there are some glaring deficiencies in it. For example, it was recognised by the Government, and generally recognised, I think, by psephologists and others, that the very high informal vote in the election of members to the House of Representatives was brought about by reason of the different methods that applied for voting for the House of Representatives and for the Senate. I would have thought that that would have been one of the matters on which the Government would have made recommendations for changes in the existing legislation. I would have thought that such changes would be in the interests of the Government. I also believe that it would be in the interests of the people of Australia and of democracy in general for there to be a system of voting which is not confusing to the voters and which enables the voters to have an effective vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But there is nothing in the ministerial statement about any legislation that is likely to be forthcoming in respect of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Despite all of the hullabaloo since the election there is nothing in the legislative program which relates to the inequities that prevail in respect of public funding and public expenditure on elections. It may be that such legislation will come forward in due course. Another issue that is not present in the ministerial statement is that of youth unemployment. I give the Government fair warning that, week after week, I will be pressing it to prove its bona fides on this question of youth unemployment because if the Government were fair dinkum about youth unemployment it would ensure that its departments and authorities give youth a fair go. But the Government's departments and authorities are not giving youth a fair go. In fact, the position has been reached that whereas in 1966 youth made up almost 23 per cent of the Commonwealth Public Service staff youth now constitutes only 6.7 per cent. I shall be asking the Government what it has done in the last two years to remedy that position. How many youths has it employed in Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities over that period? If it has not done these things, I ask why-or has it given undue emphasis to the type of strategy devised by cosy public servants and radical feminists in various Public Service areas? The Government will have to face up to that question if it is to prove its bona fides. In addition, nothing is said in the legislative program about the gross failure of the family law legislation to address the problems of divorce and their consequences. Those consequences, as has been pointed out in recent studies, prove that a major cause of poverty in Australia is now the breakdown of marriage. In the period 1976 to 1983 there were more than 355,000 divorces involving over half a million children, and the divorce rate now is running at 40 per cent. Senator Chipp —Forty per cent of what? Senator HARRADINE —I refer to a paper by Dr McDonald of the Institute of Family Studies, which indicated that on the basis of current divorce rates some 40 per cent of all new marriages will end in divorce. Those figures came out of that study. The cost to the taxpayer of marriage breakdowns last year exceeded $1.2 billion. It is a matter of national tragedy for those involved and a matter of human concern. It also has significant economic consequences. My proposals, which received fairly general acceptance and consideration around the Senate, have not been maturely considered and there are no proposals in the ministerial statement for any amendment to the family law legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), or at least the Governor-General in his Speech, said: You, the members of the Parliament of Australia, have been called together to provide the legislative basis upon which the commitments made by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government at the recent election will be carried out. That is only part of the story. Parliament has a legislative function but it also has an audit and control function over government departments, statutory authorities and the actions of the Government. We also have an expressive and representative function, and I shall discharge that function. Certainly I hope to give proper and mature consideration to the legislative program put forward by the Government and vote according to the merits of the proposal. But I believe that the Government should ensure that the expressive and representative functions of members of parliament, even those who have got back to this stage, are not demeaned or overrun by a legislative program which, as Senator Chipp said, often runs in this Senate well past the time when the House of Representatives has risen and its members have gone home. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(10.56) —I am encouraged by the kind words by the Opposition spokesmen about the ministerial statement which I made a little earlier. I rise, however, to remind the Senate that the ministerial statement was entitled 'Government's Legislation Program: Autumn Sittings, 1985'. I was encouraged by the enthusiastic support for the bringing down of such a statement, but I suppose a little discouraged by the revelation that, following the recent election, we are back to the same old game in Australian politics and a degree of stroppiness is substituted for intellectual integrity and rigour in statements made by Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp. Senator Withers —What about an election next month? Senator BUTTON —I do not think we will be having an election for three years. Senator Withers will have to suffer this for a long time. I was disappointed that Senator Chaney made stroppy statements today on behalf of his selfish little constituencies which, prior to the election, he elevated to the highest common denominator of Australian politics, and he is still talking about those people. Senator Chaney in those remarks made the most grave personal accusation against me. He said that I was hiding behind the shield of honesty about the economic difficulties facing this country. That is a filthy allegation to make against any senator. There are few people in this Parliament who face up to the economic difficulties confronted by Australia, and Senator Chaney is not one of them. He is still bleating away about his selfish little constituencies; that is the problem with this country. Governments under Senator Chaney's type of administration have catered for people of that sort and ignored the general, overall economic welfare of this country and the major issues of concern. Again today such points were raised in debate by Senator Chaney. I hope that it is not the shape of things to come in the quality of debate in this chamber. I turn to the issues raised by Senator Chipp. His speech was a stunt. He began by talking of the importance of knowing the Government's legislative program, and then went on to devote his entire speech to what was not in it. I refer, for example, to the nuclear cloud. If on behalf of the Australian Democrats Senator Chipp is suggesting that the nuclear cloud issue, which he espouses with such fervour and admirable concern, is something that can be legislated against in the autumn session of the Australian Parliament, I think he is doing a disservice to his own cause and the many people in the community who support it. This Parliament cannot legislate about those matters, nor can it legislate about the variety of other matters which Senator Chipp mentioned in his remarks. Senator Chipp —What about bases? What about the export of uranium? What about the visit of ships? Senator BUTTON —I understand all that. Senator Chipp —Can we not legislate about those? Senator BUTTON —All those things which the honourable senator just reeled off are dependent upon his view of the political propriety of those matters, and that is a matter for debate. We disagree with him about some of those-- Senator Chipp —I agree. But the Parliament can legislate on them, can't it? Senator BUTTON —Yes, but Senator Chipp put it much wider than that in the course of his comments in the debate. He referred to the nuclear cloud issue, as he put it, in very broad terms. In his speech-I am permitted, I think, to make this comment-he did not see fit to mention particular legislative issues except the one which he will be bringing up, as I understand it, in the Senate next week. I raise these matters only because I think it important that in the 1985 Parliament we get off to a good start. I would not like to see this Parliament degenerate in 1985 into nit picking about trivial matters. I would like to see good quality debate in the Parliament and then I think all the things about which Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp-and Senator Harradine in a different way in what I thought was a more thoughtful speech-are concerned might be dealt with at a better level. Having offered those observations, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motions (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: No. 1-Suspension of Standing Order 14: That Standing Order 14 be suspended to enable the Senate to consider business beyond what is of a formal character before the Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Opening Speech has been adopted. No. 2-Appointment of Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees: That, in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, the following Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees be appointed: (a) Constitutional and Legal Affairs; (b) Education and the Arts; (c) Finance and Government Operations; (d) Foreign Affairs and Defence; (e) Industry and Trade; (f) National Resources; (g) Science, Technology and the Environment; and (h) Social Welfare. No. 3-Appointment of Estimates Committees: That, in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, six Estimates Committees be appointed, to be known as Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E and F; and that, unless otherwise ordered, the Committees consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments, as follows: Estimates Committee A Parliament Industry, Technology and Commerce Prime Minister and Cabinet Trade Science Estimates Committee B Community Services Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Social Security Health Estimates Committee C Finance Employment and Industrial Relations Treasury Primary Industry Communications Estimates Committee D Education Housing and Construction Sport, Recreation and Tourism Arts, Heritage and Environment Aboriginal Affairs Estimates Committee E Resources and Energy Attorney-General Special Minister of State Foreign Affairs Defence Estimates Committee F Veterans' Affairs Transport Aviation Territories Local Government and Administrative Services No. 4-Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing: That- (a) the Committee known as the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, constituted by resolution of the Senate of 25 March 1982, be re-constituted, under the same terms, and with the same functions and power as varied by Resolution of 11 May 1983; (b) the Committee have power to consider Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing appointed in previous Parliaments; and (c) the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 5-Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills: That- (a) the Committee known as the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, constituted by Resolution of the Senate of 25 May 1982, be reconstituted, under the same terms and with the same functions and powers; (b) the Committee have power to consider Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills appointed in previous Parliaments; and (c) the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 6-Select Committee on Animal Welfare: That- (a) the Committee known as the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, constituted by Resolutions of the Senate of 16 and 17 November 1983, be re-constituted under the same terms and with the same functions and powers; (b) the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and records of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare appointed in the previous session; and (c) the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding any contained in the Standing Orders. No. 7-Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes: That- (a) the Committee known as the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, constituted by Resolution of the Senate of 24 September 1981, be re-constituted under the same terms, and with the same functions and powers as varied by Resolution of 11 May 1983; (b) the Committee have the power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes appointed in previous Parliaments; and (c) the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 8-Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes: That- (a) the Committee known as the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes, constituted by Resolution of the Senate of 10 May 1984, be reconstituted under the same terms, and with the same functions and powers as varied by Resolutions of 4 June 1984, 15 June 1984 and 9 October 1984; (b) That the Committee have power to consider the Minutes of Evidence and Records of the Select Committee on Volatile Substance Fumes appointed in the previous session; and (c) the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 9-(1) Days and Hours of Meeting: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days and hours of sitting of the Senate shall be as follows: (a) during the first sitting week- Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-4.15 p.m. (b) during the second sitting week- Monday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Tuesday, 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-7 p.m. Thursday, 10 a.m.-6.30 p.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the Senate shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, or such other day and/or hour as may 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 meeting so determined shall be notified to each Senator; and the 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated; 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 Australian 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. (2) That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day. 2. Adjournment of the Senate: That, at the terminating time each day, the President shall put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate; if the Senate be in Committee at that hour, the Chairman shall in like manner put the Question-That he do leave the Chair and report to the Senate; and upon such report being made the President shall forthwith put the Question-That the Senate do now adjourn-which Question shall be open to debate: Provided that if the Senate or the Committee be in Division at the time named, the President or the Chairman shall not put the Question referred to till the result of such Division has been declared: and if the business under discussion shall not have been disposed of at such adjournment it shall appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day. 3. Routine of Business: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: Week 1 Tuesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Wednesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Consideration of Committee Reports pursuant to Sessional Order (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) General Business (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Friday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and Re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Week 2 Monday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Tuesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Questions (4) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (5) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (6) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (7) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (8) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Wednesday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Consideration of Committee Reports pursuant to Sessional Order (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper Thursday: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) General Business (10) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper 4. That, Proposals pursuant to Standing Order 64: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders: (1) On Fridays in week 1 and Thursday in week 2 the discussion of any proposal submitted to the Senate pursuant to Standing Order 64 shall not exceed one hour. (2) The written statement of the proposed matter of public importance or urgency shall be handed in to the President not later than 12.30 p.m. on each sitting day. 5. Government and General Business-Precedence: That, on all sitting days of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business shall take precedence of General Business, except that General Business shall take precedence of Government Business on Thursdays after Questions, any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 and consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, until the expiration of two and one-half hours or until there is no further debate; and that, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Orders of the Day shall take precedence of General Business. Notices of Motion on alternate Thursdays. 6. Petitions-Procedure for Presentation: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the procedure for the presentation of petitions shall be as follows: (1) A Senator wishing to present a petition shall lodge it with the Clerk. (2) The Clerk shall make an announcement in respect of petitions lodged with him, indicating in respect of each petition the Senator who presents it, the number of signatures, and the subject matter of the petition. (3) Every petition so presented shall be deemed to have been received by the Senate unless a motion, moved forthwith, that a particular petition be not received, be agreed to. (4) The terms of the petitions presented shall be printed in Hansard. 7. Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees-Reference of Annual Reports: (1) Unless otherwise ordered, all annual reports of Government departments and authorities, including statutory corporations, laid on the Table of the Senate, shall stand referred, without any Question being put, for consideration and, if necessary, for report thereon, to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees. (2) The President shall transmit a copy of each report so tabled to the Committee which he deems appropriate. (3) The Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees may, at their discretion, pursue or not pursue inquiries into reports so received; but any action necessary, arising from a report of a Committee, shall be taken in the Senate on motion after notice. 8. Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees-Reference of Bills: After the Second Reading of a Bill (other than an Appropriation Bill, Supply Bill, or Bill imposing taxation), and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and without limiting the operation of Standing Orders 36AA and 196A, the following procedure shall apply: (1) A motion (of which notice need not be given) may be moved to refer the Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee: Provided that if no such motion be moved, or if moved and negatived, the Senate shall forthwith resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for consideration of the Bill. (2) Upon motion to refer a Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, no debate thereon shall be allowed for more than one hour, and in speaking thereon no Senator shall exceed ten minutes. If the debate be not sooner concluded then forthwith upon the expiration of that time the President shall put any Question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair. (3) On reference of a Bill to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, a day shall be fixed for the reporting of a Committee's proceedings to the Senate, by which day the final report of the Committee shall be brought up, unless further time be moved for and granted: Provided that the Senate may at any time prior to such day receive the final report of the Committee. (4) Upon a Bill being committed to a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee pursuant to this Order, it shall be set down on the Notice Paper as an Order of the Day for further consideration following report from the Committee. (5) The procedure to be adopted by a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be the same as that in Committee of the Whole: Provided that a Committee may ask for explanations from the Minister in charge of a Bill, or officers, relating to the clauses of the Bill. (6) A Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee shall have no power to make amendments to a Bill, but may recommend amendments or requests for amendments. No amendment or request for amendment may be proposed which would not be in order if proposed in a Committee of the Whole. (7) A report from a Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee, relating to a Bill, shall be received by the Senate without debate and its consideration deferred until the reading of the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Bill, when the procedure, unless otherwise ordered, shall be as follows: (a) motion may be proposed that the report be adopted, and such motion shall be open to debate; (b) on the motion for the adoption of the report, amendments may be proposed; (c) in these proceedings, the same right of speech and time limits shall apply as in debate in Committee of the Whole; (d) if amendments or requests for amendments be made, additional to any recommended by the report of a Standing Committee, the Chair shall propose a Question-That the Bill as reported (with or without amendments or requests for amendments), and as further amended, be agreed to; (e) a motion may be moved, by any Senator, that the Bill as reported from a Standing Committee be recommitted, in a whole or in part, to the Standing Committee or that the Bill as reported be committed, in whole or in part, to a Committee of the Whole; and (f) when the report from the Committee, or from a Committee of the Whole, is finally adopted, the Bill may be proceeded with in the usual way. 9. Consideration of Government Papers: That, unless otherwise ordered, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders: (1) (a) on all sitting days of the Senate, after Notices, Papers may be presented by a Minister such Papers shall then be considered pursuant to this Sessional Order after Questions and any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64; and (b) when Papers are called on by the President, pursuant to this Sessional Order, a motion may be moved, without notice, that the Senate take note of one, or several, of the Papers. (2) The debate on any motion moved pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be conducted as follows: (a) no Senator shall speak for more than 5 minutes; (b) if debate pursuant to this Sessional Order is not concluded it shall be interrupted after 30 minutes, and the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of the business of the day; (c) if the debate is adjourned or interrupted by Sessional Order, a motion may be moved for the resumption of the debate either for the Thursday of that week at the time for the consideration of General Business, or for the next day of sitting; and (d) on Thursdays, at the commencement of General Business: (i) when an Order of the Day is called on under this Sessional Order, Senators who have previously spoken may speak again for 5 minutes, (ii) motions without notice may be moved to take note of Government Papers tabled during the current sitting week and in relation to which no such motion has previously been moved: Provided that debate under this Sessional Order be interrupted after one hour. (3) Where debates on motions moved under the provisions of this Sessional Order are adjourned until the next day of sitting and are called on in the normal course of business, Senators who have spoken to the motions under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A. 10. Consideration of Committee Reports: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and unless otherwise ordered, where in any week there are Orders of the Day for the resumption of debate on motions for the consideration or adoption of reports of committees: (a) on Wednesdays after Questions, any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 and consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order, Orders of the Day relating to reports of committees presented to the Senate during that week shall be severally called on, in the order in which the respective reports were presented; (b) if there were no committee reports presented during that week, or if debate on motions relating to such reports concludes before the expiration of one hour, Orders of the Day relating to committee reports presented prior to that week shall then be severally called on in an order which is the reverse of the order in which the respective reports were presented: (c) in any debate on such motions so called on, each Senator may speak for not more than 10 minutes; and (d) any debate pursuant to this Sessional Order shall be interrupted after the expiration of one hour. (2) Provided that, where debate on any motion debated under the provisions of this Sessional Order is adjourned or is interrupted under the provisions of this Sessional Order, Senators who have spoken to such motion under the provisions of this Sessional Order may speak again to the motion for the time allowed under Standing Order 407A when the debate on the motion is again called on in the normal course of business. 11. Time Limits to Speeches-That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders: (1) No Senator shall speak for more than 30 minutes in any debate in the Senate. Any Senator may move that the time limit of 30 minutes be extended for 15 minutes; such motion shall forthwith be put without debate: Provided that where a right of reply is allowed in any debate a Senator speaking in reply shall speak for not more than 30 minutes: Provided further that, in debate on the First Reading of a Bill which the Senate may not amend, no Senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. (2) In Committee no Senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes at any one time on any one Question: Provided that where the speech of a Senator is interrupted by this provision, and no other Senator rises to speak, the Senator so interrupted may continue his speech for a further 15 minutes but no longer continuously on any one Question. No. 10-Contingent Notices of Motion: (1) To move (Contingent on any Bill being reported from a Committee of the Whole)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. (2) To move (Contingent on any Bill originating in the Senate having been read a first time)-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to sugar and certain sugar products. Bill presented by Senator Walsh, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(11.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to continue with certain exceptions, the prohibition on the import of sugar and certain sugar products into Australia. The Bill now before honourable senators contains as the Schedule the text of the Sugar Agreement 1984. This Agreement commenced on 1 July 1984 and will terminate on 30 June 1989. The key features of the Agreement are the new arrangements for fixing the domestic sugar price and for the administration of some exceptions to the import embargo. The maximum price for bulk refined sugar of manufacturers grade will be adjusted every six months based on an objective formula which takes into account movements in the consumer price index-CPI-and the world market price for sugar. The maximum price change between any two six-monthly periods is limited to the movement in the CPI. The new formula brings domestic price movements more directly in line with world price movements. The new exemption arrangements permit the importation of sugar in packs of up to five kilograms or five litres and in consignments of up to one tonne or 1,000 litres. Previous arrangements to allow sugar unavailable in Australia to be imported in larger quantities than these for special purposes are continued. These arrangements will streamline Customs procedures and eliminate the interpretation problems relating to speciality sugars that had earlier drawn adverse comment from the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Bill extends the prohibition on the import of sugar beyond the end of the Agreement on 30 June 1989. The Government does not intend, at this stage, to remove the import embargo on sugar. Honourable senators would be aware that the sugar industry is conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations and practices. The need for the embargo or alternative forms of protection will be discussed with Queensland and the industry in the light of the outcome of the review. There will be no financial impact from the passage of this Bill. It simply continues the embargo on the import of sugar and presents to the Parliament the latest in a series of domestic sugar agreements between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. The Act will commence on the day on which it receives the royal assent. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(11.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Because this Bill is substantially the same as the Bill introduced last year, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The principal purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect in Australia to the Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages signed by Australia in July 1980. The Bill represents a significant step for Australia in that it is the first of the Hague Conventions Australia has signed and will be the first to which Australia has given effect. In addition, the Bill proposes certain other amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 with which I will deal at a later stage. The Bill is, for the most part, substantially the same as that introduced last year. The Hague Convention For many years it has been recognised that marriage is such a fundamental and universal human institution that, wherever possible, a marriage celebrated in one country should be recognised as valid all over the world. Nevertheless, there are limits to the extent to which the policy of one country is acceptable in another. To reconcile these conflicting goals, a complex set of rules has developed in the common law, governing recognition of marriages involving parties whose domicile is not Australia, or marriage celebrated outside Australia. In 1983 35% of all marriages taking place in Australia involved one party who had been born overseas. The common law rules as they now stand would refer the validity of those marriages where one party was still domiciled outside Australia, partly to the law of the domicile. If a marriage takes place overseas, it might be necessary to refer to the law of a number of countries to determine its validity in Australia. The Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1976 finalised the Convention on the Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriages ('the Hague Convention') to facilitate the recognition in one country of marriages solemnised in another country. Celebration of Marriages Chapter I of the Hague Convention deals with the celebration of marriages in countries party to the Convention. The Hague Convention requires a member country to allow the celebration of a marriage on its territory where the couple meet the requirements of the law of that country, provided that one of the parties is a citizen of that member country or habitually resides there. At the moment Australian law forbids the marriage of parties in Australia where the law of the domicile of both of the parties forbids it. In practice, it is difficult for celebrants in Australia to form an opinion about the domicile of the parties or the law of a foreign country. The Bill proposes to deal with this problem by recognising the position which, as a matter of practice, has existed in Australia for many years, namely, that marriage celebrants in Australia marry persons in Australia-whether or not they are foreigners-by reference only to Australian law. To enable Australia to comply with Chapter I of the Hague Convention, the application of Part III of the Marriage Act-dealing with void marriages-is varied by clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill so that the rules of that Part will apply to all marriages solemnised after the amending provisions come into force in Australia or outside Australia under Australian law. This amounts to a variation of Australia's ''choice of law rules'' and means that each of the parties to a marriage will only be required to meet the requirements of Australian law before they may marry under that law. Recognition of the Validity of Marriages Chapter II of the Hague Convention imposes upon countries that are parties to the Convention an obligation to recognise marriages that are validly celebrated under the law of the place of celebration, subject to certain basic exceptions. This obligation will involve recognition being given to some marriages which would not be considered valid under the common law rules of private international law. In implementing the Convention the Bill also provides, in new section 88E, that these common law rules will remain in operation to a limited extent, so that even if a marriage would not be recognised as valid under the Convention, it will nevertheless be recognised as valid if the common law rules so provide. Essentially, the Convention operates as a gloss upon the common law, as it will provide an additional basis upon which the recognition of validity of foreign marriages may be afforded. The Convention rules are contained in a new Part (Part VA) to be inserted in the Act by clause 23. To give the maximum benefit, Part VA is to apply to all marriages whether solemnised before or after the Convention comes into force for Australia. The only difficulty that this may cause will arise where a party to a marriage, which was previously regarded as invalid, has remarried prior to the commencement of the new rules, relying on the invalidity of the prior marriage. Accordingly, there is a saving provision in new sub-section 88D (5) so that the first marriage in that situation will continue to be regarded as void, whether or not it would be valid under the Convention rules. Priority is thus given to the subsequent marriage, which was entered into in good faith. Part VA will extend recognition to a marriage solemnised in a country outside Australia as valid throughout Australia if the marriage was, at the time it was solemnised, recognised as valid by the law of the country where it was solemnised or, alternatively, if the marriage is recognised as valid under that law at the time its validity falls to be determined (paragraphs 88C (1) (a) and (2) (a)). Analogous provisions will apply to marriages solemnised overseas by foreign diplomatic or consular officers. These rules of recognition will, however, be subject to a number of exceptions, permitted by Article 11 of the Convention and set out in sub-sections 88D (2) and (3). A marriage solemnised in a country outside Australia will not be required to be recognised as valid under the Convention rules where: either party was, at the time of the marriage, already married to some other person; either party was not of the minimum Australian marriageable age, which is 16 years for males and 14 for females; the parties were within a prohibited relationship; or the consent of either was not a real consent. Another provision of Part VA, section 88F, provides, in accordance with the policy expressed in Article 12 of the Hague Convention, that where the question of the validity of a marriage is incidental to the determination of another question (e.g. relating to inheritance) the validity question shall be resolved in accordance with the Convention rules. A prima facie method of proof of a marriage alleged to have been solemnised in a foreign country is also provided in section 88G. The Bill also makes a number of other amendments. Legitimacy of children Some of these relate to Part VI of the Act, which deals with the legitimacy of children in certain circumstances. One amendment, in clause 26, inserts new sub-section 93 (3) into the Act. The background to this amendment can be found in the recent developments in technology to assist reproduction, most notably the technique of in vitro fertilization (IVF). This technique, together with the related one of artificial insemination by donor (AID), has given rise to discussions in the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General with a view to the enactment of uniform State and Territory legislation dealing with the parentage of these children. These discussions have not been concerned with the broader ethical and social issues raised by these techniques; they have simply been directed to the clarification of the status of the increasing number of children born in these ways. In general, the decision has been taken that a donor of genetic material should have no relationship with the child, and the legal parental relationship should be given to the 'social' parents. In the context of Standing Committee discussions, some doubts were raised as to whether Part VI of the Marriage Act might not unintentionally frustrate part of this uniform law exercise. This would be so if the provisions of Part VI were to be interpreted by the courts as 'covering the field' with respect to the legitimation of children, leaving no room for the State laws concerned to have a valid operation. The problem is a constitutional one to do with the overriding effect of Commonwealth law. This amendment will make clear the intention of the Parliament not to affect the validity or effect of State and Territory laws dealing with the parentage of these children. The other amendment to Part VI, in clause 25, involves the extension of the operation of section 90 of the Act. That section deals with legitimation by virtue of a foreign marriage, and presently has no operation where the relevant foreign law does not recognise the status of illegitimacy. The amendment will deal with such a case by treating a child as legitimate if the parents subsequently marry. The opportunity has also been taken to amend the application provisions of sections 89 and 90 so that they operate on the domicile of either parent, rather than only that of the child's father. This change reflects the situation in which a married woman now has a separate domicile, since the enactment of the Domicile Act 1982. Notice of Intended Marriage Minor amendments are made by clause 16 to section 42 of the Act to improve the operation of the provisions dealing with notices of intended marriage. The most important is the extension, from 3 months to 6 months, of the maximum period prior to the date of the marriage within which the notice can be filed. Extension of this time will allow celebrants and parties greater flexibility in making arrangements. The Family Law Council has considered this proposal, which has been put by civil celebrant groups, and sees no objection to it. Australian diplomatic officials are added to the list of those who may witness a notice of intended marriage. This will make the necessary paperwork easier for those who have to come from outside Australia to marry in Australia. Fees for Civil Celebrants The Bill inserts provisions to provide that a civil marriage celebrant is not entitled to charge a fee for the solemnisation of a marriage higher than that prescribed by the regulations. This will make it clear that the prescribed fees are the legal maximum that can be demanded for solemnisation. It seems desirable, in light of the particularly vulnerable position of parties about to be married, that there be a clear legislative statement to this effect, for the protection of both parties and celebrants. It is not intended by this provision to affect the ability of celebrants to make reasonable charges for other matters ancillary to the actual solemnisation, such as flowers or music. I should also point out that the Government is keeping under review the level of fees, to ensure, consistent with overall economic restraint, that the fees represent an adequate remuneration for this important service. Early last year the fees payable were significantly increased in light of these principles. Provision of 'Marriage Education' As a continuing part of the Government's response to recommendation 61 of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act-that 'education for marriage and family life be further supported'-the concept of 'Pre-Marital Education' in Part 1A of the Act is broadened to that of 'Marriage Education', by clauses 5 to 9. Organisations working in the area of pre-marital education have often indicated that one of the most useful times to engage in education for marriage is in that period shortly after the marriage has been entered into. Recently this Parliament enacted long-needed changes to the laws governing the termination of marriage. This Bill represents another facet of the Government's commitment to resolving the problems faced by ordinary men and women in Australia in that most personal area of their lives. Particularly in extending the grounds for recognition of marriages entered into overseas, in ensuring the legitimacy of children recognised as such by State laws, and in broadening the scope of education for married life, this Bill is an affirmative statement of the importance of marriage as a fundamental and enduring institution. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to: (1) That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provision of this resolution having effect. (2) That the following Bills be restored to the Notice Paper and that consideration of each of the Bills be resumed at the stage reached in the last session of Parliament: Constitution Alteration (Appropriation Bills) Bill 1984-(Senator Peter Rae) Constitution Alteration (External Affairs) Bill 1984-(Senator Durack) Flags Amendment Bill 1984-(Senator Durack) Horticultural-Plant Variety Rights Bill 1984-(Senator Hill) Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: (1) That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provision of this resolution having effect. (2) That the following Bills be restored to the Notice Paper and that consideration of each of the Bills be resumed at the stage reached in the last session of Parliament: Australian Capital Territory Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill 1983- (Senator Jack Evans). Australian Waters (Nuclear-Powered Ships and Nuclear Weapons Prohibition) Bill 1984-(The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp). Commission of Inquiry (Chamberlain Convictions) Bill 1984-(Senator Mason). Constitution Alteration (Electors' Initiative) Bill 1982 [1983]-(Senator Mason). Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1981 [1983]-(Senator Macklin). Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1981 [1983]-(Senator Haines). Liquor Advertising Tax Assessment Bill 1981 [1983]; Liquor Education Fund Bill 1981 [1983]-(The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp). Property Rights Protection Bill 1984-(Senator Haines). Rainforest Preservation Agreements Bill 1982 [1983]-(Senator Mason). Sales Tax Assessment (Rebate for Transport Costs) Bill 1981 [1983]-(The Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp). Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984-(Senator Macklin). Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983 (No. 3)-(Senator Jack Evans). Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1984-(Senator Haines). The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Harradine has indicated to me that he wishes to speak about the select committees which are reappointed under a formal resolution-the select committees on Animal Welfare, Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and Volatile Substance Fumes. We have already dealt with motions concerning those three committees. If Senator Harradine wishes to make a formal statement relating to them, he may seek leave to do so now. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-The position with the Senate Select Committee on Video Materials, I understand, is that a joint parliamentary committee will take over the work of that Committee. Nevertheless, the Senate Select Committee has a responsibility to report. I understand it will do so. I have not had a chance of speaking to my colleagues on the Committee. I raise this matter in the understanding that that Select Committee, in order to report, will have to be reformed, even if only for a few days. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The Select Committee on Video Materials was not among the three that I listed. That is a separate matter which will no doubt be raised in due course. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to. That a Committee of Privileges be appointed to consist of Senators Childs, Coates, Cook, Macklin, Peter Rae, Robert Ray and Withers. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I move: That Senator Coleman be granted leave of absence for three months, on account of ill health. I inform honourable senators that it is my information that Senator Coleman is recovering well from her serious illness. I am sure we all wish her well. She is progressing well and we hope that she will be back here as soon as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Chaney —I wish to make just a short comment. In light of that report it might be appropriate if the Senate sent a message of good wishes to Senator Coleman from us all and wished her a speedy recovery. I think we could do that without moving a motion. Senator Grimes —I certainly agree with that. We do not usually do that by motion; we just do it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I will take that matter up with the President. I am sure it can be done. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that Mr President has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) nominating senators to vacancies on certain statutory authorities, caused by the resignation from the Senate of Senator Martin, as follows: Senator Reid to be a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives; and Senator Hill to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That, in accordance with the provisions of the Archives Act 1983, the Senate choose Senator Reid to be a member of the Advisory Council on Australian Archives till 7 June 1987, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Martin. (2) That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, the Senate elect Senator Hill to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia till 2 March 1987, to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Senator Martin. Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.14) —The Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes made the first of its reports to the Senate by handing to the President early in November 1984 the completed report on private nursing homes. This matter was initially brought to the attention of the Senate by Senator Janine Haines. She referred the matter of the conduct of private hospitals and nursing homes in Australia to the Senate in September 1981 in response to increasing expressions of concern in the community about the ownership and operation of private hospitals and private nursing homes. Specifically, there were a number of areas of concern with respect to the nursing home industry. The standard of care received by nursing home patients had received considerable attention in the Press at that time. Many of the articles on nursing home patients painted a bleak and depressing picture of life in a nursing home and some articles raised serious allegations of ill treatment or lack of care. In addition, allegations that private nursing home proprietors were making excessive profits at the expense of patients had become common. The terms of reference before the Committee then covered essentially those main points. I wish at this point to address one of the contentious parts of our report; that is, the use of the photographs of patients-very debilitated patients-suffering from decubitis ulcers, more commonly known as bed sores, from malnutrition and from general neglect. We did not include those photographs without a lot of thought and a lot of serious contemplation of the consequences. However, we felt that in view of the nature of the inquiry and the fact that there had been a number of such inquiries-it seemed so easy to sanitise problems of this nature simply in the black and white text of the report-it was high time that the Australian community was brought face to face with the consequences of neglect of elderly and vulnerable individuals receiving insufficient nursing and insufficient care and suffering from poor management of nursing homes and poor nutrition. We felt, though these patients represented a minority of those in nursing homes and though the poor care brought to our attention was being suffered in a minority of nursing homes, nonetheless the fact that it existed at all meant that the problem should be very forcibly brought to the attention of the Senate and the Australian public. The photographs that we used were presented to the Committee early in its deliberations. We took the precaution of checking with the sources of those photographs and were assured that we could be provided with an up to date set which would be just as compelling and evocative of the very problems that we wanted to emphasise. I think the length of the inquiry needs to be explained to the Senate; over three years is possibly approaching a record for such an inquiry. We found that it was an extremely extensive reference, much wider than we had anticipated initially. We resolved as a result that there should be two separate reports to the Senate, the first of which we are now dealing with. In the interim we had a double dissolution, necessitating reappointment of the Committee, which in itself was the cause of a certain hiatus. In addition to that there was an enormous amount of change in the industry during those three years and we found that we were continually revising the text of our report. I pay a very sincere tribute to the members of the Committee, which was led by Senator Walters in the role of Chairman during the first eighteen months of the inquiry. The enormous amount of effort and commitment that was put in by individual committee members had to be seen to be believed. I certainly express my gratitude to them for that commitment. We were served by two excellent secretariats-another cause for delay being the change in personnel in the middle of the inquiry. Initially our Secretary was Pat Mayberry and ultimately it was Tim Dodson. They, their research assistants and their stenographic support put in sterling work which, towards the end, was far beyond the call of duty. To them I extend the gratitude of the Committee. In the course of the inquiry we received 161 submissions and interviewed 142 witnesses who represented 53 organisations. Towards the end of the inquiry-and this is another cause of the delay-we felt that we should open up our hearings again for further evidence in relation to the question of funding of nursing homes. We did this in view of the fact that we had become aware of a number of cases before various courts that had been brought by owners of nursing homes who felt that the fees they were permitted to charge were quite inadequate in terms of the viability of their nursing homes. I would like to express my gratitude once again to all those people who made submissions and who appeared as witnesses before the inquiry. Many witnesses, to whom we have had to go back time and time again for further elucidations and to keep up with the changes that have been occurring within the industry co-operated wonderfully. We were also very fortunate in the latter stages of the report to have the services of Dr Anna Howe. Dr Howe, who is one of Australia's leading specialists in the care of the aged, was able to assist us to emphasise issues which were of particular significance in the report, having regard to the number of reports in this area that have gone before. The topic of aged care accommodation had already been examined by a sub-committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. Other reports concerning care of the aged have been produced in the last decade, a number of which made recommendations with respect to nursing homes or the administration and funding of nursing home programs. Rather than merely repeat this information, our Committee has concentrated on those areas which have not been dealt with before or which the Committee believes deserve special consideration. One of those issues was ownership of nursing homes. As I mentioned before, public statements have been made by a wide range of interested people on the possible conflict of interest which would occur in the event of doctors owning nursing homes to which they referred their own patients. We determined early in the course of the inquiry to conduct a survey of the ownership in the nursing home industry. I am happy to report that in the end, after a little while and, in some cases, after three or four letters were sent, the co-operation of the nursing home industry was excellent. Out of a total of 761 nursing homes surveyed, all but two were prepared to return to us their completed questionnaires in relation to the ownership of nursing homes. We were concerned, of course, about beneficial ownership. We were also concerned that company and trust ownership might confuse the issue and in many cases mask the actual ownership of nursing homes. We discovered in our survey that in fact at that stage only 88 owners reported being medical practitioners and that of those, very few-in fact, six-reported referring patients to their own nursing homes. We found, however, that a total of 265 people with beneficial ownership reported their occupations as home duties and 400 reported their occupations as students. Unfortunately our questionnaire was not finely tuned enough to enable us to draw out from the statistics on beneficial ownership in respect of the families of medical practitioners. At June 1984 the nursing home industry encompassed 1,448 nursing homes. This is the figure for the whole spectrum, including nursing homes run by State governments, those that are in the private enterprise sector and those that are run by religious and charitable organisations which are not, of course, operated for profit. Of that total of 1,448 nursing homes, 761 were run by private enterprise. The industry has a total of 75,000 beds Australia-wide. In 1983-84 the Commonwealth spent approximately $1,065m on accommodation and nursing home care for the aged. Of this amount, 92 per cent was spent on residential accommodation and care and only 8 per cent-that is, $88m-was spent on home care and domiciliary care services of which, of course, the aged are the major users. Although these figures may sound quite enormous in relation to the amount spent generally on care of this nature in the Australian population, I would like to point out that only 7 per cent of those over the age of 70 is in any sort of supported accommodation or care. We had indications that in some States perhaps one in four of that 7 per cent of people over 70 years of age is in more heavily supported accommodation than is absolutely necessary. Over the years, however, as the nursing home industry itself has been developing very rapidly, as is clear from the figures, the provision of domiciliary care has been much less widespread and much less effective. It was clear from the evidence we received time and time again that very many people would be able to stay in their own homes or would be very well accommodated in less heavily supported care if such facilities were available. The recommendations of the Committee went to a number of these and other issues. If I may, I would like briefly to summarise those recommendations because I know that many honourable senators take a very close interest in these issues, as indeed they should. We have suggested amongst our recommendations that the growth of the nursing home industry be more strictly controlled than has been the case in the past. Over the last 22 years there has been an increase from 27.4 beds per thousand of the population over 65 years of age to 47.5 beds. We felt that the rate of the increase, which certainly has slowed down over the last few years, should be much more severely controlled. We have recommended a maximum one-third increase of current nursing home beds in the period to June 30 1996. It is quite obvious that not only is the actual number of nursing home beds in Australia of great significance but it is also significant that their distribution is very uneven both in a geographical sense and a socio-economic sense. We have suggested that priority be given to providing nursing home accommodation in areas where the existing provision of beds is below 60 beds per thousand persons aged 70 years and over and that, in order to reduce the number of beds in areas of oversupply-all of us are aware of suburbs in our own cities where there are nursing homes in every other street-the Commonwealth Department of Health, after consultation with the States, consider a number of options, none of which would be particularly draconian. Firstly, it might be possible to persuade charitable and religious groups progressively to convert their nursing homes to a range of appropriate aged persons' accommodation such as hostels. It may also be possible for the Commonwealth to purchase nursing homes as they come on to the market in areas of oversupply and use them for other health or welfare purposes. We are particularly concerned that nursing home accommodation be appropriate to the geographical areas in which it is developed. We were told, for example, of three private nursing homes built fairly recently in the local authority area of Sunshine in Victoria. All of those three private nursing homes were priced out of the reach of the majority of people living in that area. We have suggested that the basis on which the funding of nursing homes is determined be changed from a per capita basis to a program grant basis. We have also suggested that until this happens some of the financial problems experienced by a significant sector of nursing homes would be solved by the determination of nursing home benefits twice yearly rather than annually as is presently the case. We feel that if this were done twice yearly in tandem with pension increases it would be a great deal more equitable as far as some nursing home owners are concerned. Certainly, there are people in the industry who are struggling to remain viable. We are concerned that many of the deficit funded nursing homes are not providing the assistance which it was intended initially should be provided through these homes to people in greatest need. We have made a suggestion that the Commonwealth Department of Health, while acknowledging the prior rights of persons who have contractual arrangements through their hostel accommodation and so forth, ensure that the highest possible proportion of beds in deficit funded homes be made available to those in greatest need. Once again, we draw attention to the fact that many of the deficit funded homes have been established in fairly high socio-economic areas, which is not particularly appropriate to achieving accommodation for the less affluent. We would like to see government priority for the provision of capital subsidies for nursing homes, under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, redirected towards the provision of other forms of accommodation. This would be in line with our recommendation that there be a ceiling on the number of new nursing home beds made available within the next 10 or 12 years. We are particularly concerned about the inequities which have occurred in the benefits paid to the States by the Commonwealth, which have an historic basis in the enormous difference in staffing levels between nursing homes in the various States. We have suggested that the Commonwealth set its own staffing levels, taking into account the different needs of patients, and that where States want nursing hours above the level set by the Commonwealth the States themselves be responsible for the extra expense involved. Our recommendations in relation to program grants, to which I referred earlier, would be to overcome the incentive that currently exists for nursing homes to keep all their beds occupied at all times. Our move, quite recently, to provide respite beds in nursing homes and in hostels was, I believe, a first step in that direction. It was put to us a number of times during the inquiry that it was perfectly logical, reasonable and desirable for a nursing home to be able to put to the Commonwealth Government a program which would be appropriate to the social needs of its own geographical area and to the needs of the individuals in that area. We believe this is the way in which the industry should be encouraged to develop. I imagine that we will see a considerable amount of experimentation over structures-I hasten to assure honourable senators that that will not apply to patients-over the next few years. For example, a nursing home may wish to provide accommodation for a high proportion of patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease; that is, those with senile dementia. This would mean extra staff and specially designed facilities. The extra cost could be built into the program grant and the extra facilities, the extra staff and services generally, could be provided for within that grant. We would like to see that introduced as soon as possible. It is a highly complicated process, but a fair amount of work has been done already. We would advocate that an independent review be undertaken three years after the implementation of such a program. We have advocated also that, as an interim measure only, for nursing homes established before 1973 or any other home with extremely low profits the Commonwealth allow a level of profit sufficient to ensure the viability of these homes until the system of program grants is implemented. Repeatedly evidence was given to the Committee that some nursing homes showed a very low level of profit. This evidence was substantiated by a survey done by Price Waterhouse Associates Pty in 1981. To the extent that it is desirable to keep private nursing homes functioning-certainly those with good and sustainable standards-the Committee agreed that a margin for profit must be included in the determination of fees. Regarding the ownership of private nursing homes, there were dissenting opinions within the Committee. The majority view was that all States-of course this is not a matter on which the Commonwealth can legislate-should pass legislation prohibiting doctors from admitting patients to nursing homes in which they have a notifiable interest, which is defined clearly among the recommendations. Time and again we were faced with evidence of the potential for conflict of interest. As I have said, our survey of ownership showed up an apparently very minor element of potential conflict of interest, but while that potential is there it is felt by many people who gave evidence and by a majority of the members of the Committee that that conflict of interest should be clearly avoided by the simple expedient of prohibiting doctors from admitting patients to nursing homes in which they or their families have a notifiable interest. That was not the most draconian approach we could have taken. We could have recommended to the States that doctors should not be permitted to have financial interests in nursing homes. We did not go quite as far as that but, the Committee felt that the more moderate recommendation was justified. We spent a lot of time concerning ourselves with the standard of care in nursing homes. This issue has received a great deal of attention in the Press at one time or another and the most horrifying examples have been described on a number of occasions. It is absolutely true to say that there is no national code of physical standards for nursing homes and certainly there is no national standard of care within nursing homes. We felt it absolutely crucial that the Commonwealth Department of Health work towards introducing codes on these two matters as soon as possible. We advocated too that an inspectorate section be set up within the standards and development branch of the central office of the Commonwealth Department of Health, with regional sections situated in each State's regional office. The current state of affairs in relation to the inspection of nursing homes is totally unsatisfactory. This is spread across the responsibilities of local, State and Commonwealth authorities. Even where those authorities are doing their job efficiently according to their own guidelines and regulations, the sum total is certainly not an effective control of standards within nursing homes in Australia. I hasten to interpolate once again that we visited nursing homes in all the States-we saw some of the best, some of the mediocre and some of the very bad-and found that the majority are providing an honest service to their patients within the constraints of the systems that currently exist. Some nursing homes are providing an excellent service, but far too many are in a state of confusion about exactly what constitutes a high standard of care. I think all honourable senators would agree that we have a moral obligation to make certain that the vulnerable and frail aged are cared for as well as possible and that we have a wider responsibility to the whole community to ensure that this happens. In view of the fact that well over $1m is being spent each year in this sector, we also have an obligation to the public purse. For nursing homes which were persistently poor and refused to lift their standards in response to complaints and repeated inspections, we chose the solution first advocated by the inquiry by Price Waterhouse Associates, which was that there should be a hit squad-to describe it loosely-comprising a geriatrician, a senior nurse, a hygenist, a dietitian, an accountant, an industrial officer and a tax inspector, which would move in, seal off the nursing home and inspect it thoroughly from top to bottom, back to front and inside out and that the inspection by this team be held without notice and completed in one visit. To deal with complaints about care of the aged we need to set up an authority independent of the departments which have been closely involved in the delivery of these programs. Our suggestion is that a separate complaints office be established. As we are not dealing solely with Commonwealth programs conducted by Commonwealth employees, the Ombudsman or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is not the appropriate body for the carriage of such aged care complaints. We believe such an office would need to be established by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) somewhat along the lines of the Human Rights Commission. It would provide for conciliation between the parties which, in many cases, we feel would lead to a resolution of complaints. The office must be backed by legislation in the event of more drastic action having to be taken, which we believe would happen very rarely. I emphasise once again that a comparatively small section of the Australian population is in need of care in nursing homes. The majority of the people currently in nursing homes are being well cared for but there must be more emphasis placed on the care that people, when given the opportunity, wish to have within their own homes. Within the next few years, I feel certain, there will be a great deal of movement towards the implementation of the recommendations we are making. I believe these not only will increase the quality of care that is available but also will ensure that the care is being directed to those who need it most; that each individual receives the most appropriate care, and that the Commonwealth together with the States fully accepts its responsibility to the frail and the elderly. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(11.44) —I take the opportunity to make some remarks about the report of the Senate Select Committee into Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. I preface those remarks by thanking officially the Chairman, Senator Giles. I can say with a particular understanding that Senator Giles on occasions had to deal with some difficulties that arose-very nice difficulties-and she managed them with her particular skill and ability. I joined the Select Committee in 1983 and found myself on, I think, the first all-women Senate committee. At that stage, as Senator Giles has elaborated, the Committee was well under way, so I appreciated that I was not part of the Committee from its beginning. I formally thank the Chairman, both on my behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Committee, for the extraordinary job she has done in chairing this Committee since I have been a member of it. The points that Senator Giles raised need to be noted. They are that from time to time, when we thought we were ready to write our report and present our recommendations, it suddenly became obvious that we would have to rehear evidence or take into consideration changes in the industry or, as Senator Giles mentioned, reconsider some of the cases brought before courts concerning complaints involving private nursing homes. From time to time we were about to make our report and we found that we just had to start again. Patience was needed by our Chairman in getting us through those difficulties. I thank my colleagues and I join Senator Giles in thanking the support staff. The Secretariat worked splendidly. Quite often after we had retired wearily at the end of a long day the Secretariat continued to work. Behind the Secretariat was the back-up staff on the word processors and the stenographers who may have kept even longer hours in order to finalise the report. I think it is important to acknowledge them and I thank them in particular. One of the reasons why I am very appreciative of this report is that if at any time I want to find out about the private nursing home industry I can look up the report. I found it an extraordinary challenge to master the whole range of complexities concerning money, legislation and regulations and the various sub-sections under the heading of the private nursing home industry. I am very grateful to have a report which contains not only recommendations about those difficulties but also much data collected in one place. Anyone looking at it will see that it is a huge report. It is larger than many I have seen tabled in the last couple of years. I do not have too long a history in the Senate, and perhaps there are many reports which are larger, but this report seems to me to be very comprehensive. It has to be as that is the nature of the industry and the nature of what we found out as we went through the inquiry. This is only half of the report, so it is an extraordinary reference to which we have addressed ourselves. The report does address all the complexities that I think have been outlined so adequately and pertinently by Senator Giles. I do not wish to run over those points again. During the hearing of the evidence I learnt just how confusing and how complex the private nursing home industry is. There are huge numbers of variations contingent on special nursing homes, special requests, special numbers of beds, special nursing requirements and so on, and they have added to the complexity. I think the report is very timely. I understand the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is going to examine this report thoroughly because the private nursing home industry is a matter of great concern to the Government, particularly because of the cost to the public purse of expenditure in this industry. I would like to raise a couple of points before I return to the minority reports. Senator Giles alluded, towards the end of her report, to the care of patients, which we paid particular attention to in the course of our examination. The priority concern for all of us when we examine the private nursing home industry is the quality of care for the patients. I am sure we have no dispute about that. It is not a matter of profit, of nursing regulations or of how the buildings look; it is a matter of what is provided in terms of care for those patients who, mostly for medical reasons and sometimes for medico-social reasons, finish up living part of or the end of their lives in such nursing homes. It is the quality of care, and much of the report attended to that. Like every other section of this report, it turned out to be a sort of Pandora's box. The more we looked at it, the more we found we had to look at and the more complex it became. There are difficulties in defining what is meant by care. Are we talking about nursing care, something more extensive than nursing care or something more restrictive than nursing care? If we describe nursing care, we have to describe the personnel who will provide it. The Committee attempted to address all of those variations and areas of the definition of the providers of service or care. It is easy enough to say that finding a good quality nursing home with good quality nursing care will fix the problem. But our Committee actually had to define what it meant by a good quality nursing home and good quality nursing care. It turned out to be a very difficult task and a very extensive number of hours were devoted to it. I think we have taken some considerable steps towards the final definition that will probably be necessary in that area. There are difficulties in terms of defining what is necessary for a patient. There are also difficulties in defining what is necessarily called nursing duties for the staff. In providing good quality care we have to make sure that we have satisfied or happy providers of the care. The problem in the nursing industry has been not only a matter of buildings but also a matter of staffing and definitions of duties for the staff in those nursing homes. Again we became very aware of how difficult it is to define exactly what is a nursing duty, although some of the nursing unions-in particular, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation-have moved some considerable distance in making those definitions. The Committee was able to draw on their already established definitions. Some very extensive research also has been done and that was a help for the Committee too. But I think there will still be room for further definition, further exactness and perhaps further flexibility in how those definitions go. Then the consideration extended to the assistant staff, domiciliary staff, caretaker staff and backup support staff and to where their duties finish and where nursing duties start, or vice versa. Again, the Committee spent some time deliberating on these matters and made recommendations in that area. But I imagine that they will be open to continuing consideration. I also comment that one of the things I learnt during my time on this Committee was that if there is any area where history seems to be happening by the day or the week it is the nursing home industry. There have been great changes in this whole area since the late 1950s and early 1960s. There has been a huge increase in the number of beds. Although, as Senator Giles commented, the rate of increase is slowing down now, the expectation of the use of such beds will continue certainly until the turn of the century and possibly even beyond that-perhaps until the year 2010 when it is projected that our aged population will be dramatically increasing as a percentage of those not yet aged. So we cannot see any likelihood that the number of nursing home beds will lessen. But we can see a change in requirements for who shall go into nursing home beds, how those nursing home beds are allocated and where they are distributed. Considerations such as whether respite care use of nursing home beds should be increased, whether a section of every nursing home should be set aside for respite care and the distribution of respite care beds across a State or an area illustrate just some of the questions we can ask, did ask and did address. I say in summary that my learning on this Committee has come from looking at an industry or an area of our society that is very much in a process of change. I think it will continue to change and that we need to have in place a system that will allow evaluation of that process as it is happening so that we, government, professions and the industry itself can adjust as necessary, depending on the requirements and the consequences of those changes. I turn now to the minority reports. I think one of the points which again Senator Giles touched on was the coloured photographs that we included in our report. This was raised as a difficulty in one of the dissenting reports. I very strongly endorse the inclusion of those photographs. Again I think it is important for us to make sure that it is understood that we were talking about a very bad, very small part of this comprehensive industry. But I do not believe that our society ought not know of or be protected from some of the really quite horrific things that happen in very few of the nursing homes. It is far better that those things are known and prevented. Such nursing homes should be closed or not allowed to practice in that way, so that elderly people in our society are protected from that kind of gross, dehumanising mismanagement. So yes, these things do make us draw breath, but they remind us that, in this society of Australia which is so wealthy, so affluent, so beautiful and so caring, such things as poverty and appalling medical care do happen. If we claim to be as good as we sometimes do, I think we must make sure that no small exceptions like that happen. It was claimed in the dissenting report that reporting those stories would get a bad name for the whole industry. I think the situation is no different from any other regulation in any other industry in that when the bad parts are highlighted people can be sure that the part of the industry that remains is more credible because it is quite clear that it is not associated with the very bad service in a few parts of the industry. Besides, I think we should never flinch from making those sorts of facts known, even if it is necessary to change the whole profession or the whole industry. In this case it was a very small change. There were not many hospitals and nursing homes that gave that kind of appalling care. The other point that I think is important is the conflict of interest. I must say that I would not have been troubled to support the even tougher proposal that doctors not be allowed to own any interest in nursing homes. I think that in the history of this whole industry many medical people with wisdom and care of patients as their principal concern have established nursing homes or helped to contribute to the establishment of nursing homes precisely to provide that sort of assistance and care which they knew, from knowing their patients, was necessary. I have no conflict with that. I think the medical profession can hold its head high in terms of the many wonderful initiatives it has led for the benefit of people in this country. But we come to a time when we have to look hard at the possibility of a conflict of interest in this area. It is not unlike, I think, the doctors and the pharmacists who, some time ago, for the benefit of their patients, were arranging to provide their services close by. It was quite obvious after a while that there was a possibility of conflict of interest. In fact, I suspect that there was some evidence to that effect. I think it is a case of realising the potential and preventing it. As Senator Giles has said, we have also had some hint of evidence that it is already a possibility in this country. I do not believe that we should discredit the profession or allow anything that might discredit the profession. Nor should we allow anything that might lower the possibility of good quality care for patients. So I do not see that it is impossible to require by legislation that doctors not be allowed to own an interest in nursing home beds. However, the Committee did not make that recommendation to that extent. It simply recommended that doctors not be allowed to refer patients to nursing homes in which they have a financial interest. What is meant by a financial interest of the doctor is very clearly defined in the report. Senator Peter Baume —Is not this a moral question? You really cannot secure it with legal sanctions. It is a question of moral approach by doctors. You cannot secure it legally. Senator CROWLEY —Sadly, I think we have evidence that from time to time even the medical profession is less than 100 per cent moral. Senator Sheil —So is everyone. Senator CROWLEY —Indeed. I would have thought that, as we now have it clearly from the lips of the honourable senator on the other side of the chamber that everyone is not always 100 per cent moral, we can include the suggestion that the doctors are not 100 per cent moral and have his support in this matter. We know that is so, therefore I think we have a responsibility to address the possibility of conflict of interest. Most doctors do not have that conflict, although some do. We had evidence before the Committee indicating that such a conflict was quite likely to happen-that the potential was there-and that it has happened. Therefore, I believe that it is no hardship and no great matter to change circumstances so that this conflict of interest is not possible. Senator Peter Baume —It still remains possible. Senator CROWLEY —I do not believe it is an amazing statement. As we have evidence that doctors are open to that kind of conflict of interest we should ensure that it is not possible. Of course our principal reason for doing that is that we are looking at continuing respect for the profession and continuing the quality of care of patients. As I said in the beginning, I think that is our priority concern. We must provide people with the sort of medical and humane care that will make their time in a nursing home-if such time is necessary-compatible with humanity and compassion. We should not allow the moving of people in and out of nursing homes merely because it increases the nursing home's profit. That does not help patients. Moving patients is against their good care, particularly the elderly who may be approaching senility or who cannot care for themselves because they are no longer clear in their minds. I am interested that there is an objection to this recommendation. As Senator Giles said, we were certainly far less harsh and far less direct and comprehensive than we could have been. We settled for a moderate half-way approach which simply states that doctors may not refer patients to a nursing home in which they have a financial interest. The dissenting report recommended instead that medical practitioners with such a financial interest be required to notify the patients in writing of that interest. I suggest that to write to many of these elderly confused patients informing them of a financial interest in a nursing home may cause only further confusion or possibly even fear or fright. I think that is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with a possible conflict of interest. Also, I think it makes patients the deciders as to whether the doctor is in a potential conflict of interest situation. I do not believe that any elderly or ill patient requiring nursing home care ought to be the person to make that decision. I think in some way that is a classic example of an abdication of responsibility. As we have evidence that the medical profession is not 100 per cent honourable, I think this requires that the Government unashamedly ensure that the possibly does not arise. Of course, in that way the proposed recommendation in the dissenting report would not come into effect and indeed would not be necessary because patients would be protected from having to decide whether they might be putting their doctors in a potential conflict of interest situation. The second dissenting report sees the need for the Government to make some recommendation about the numbers of nursing home beds and suggests an attempt at fairness in the distribution of nursing home beds. However, the dissenting report comments that changes to the 35-day hospital occupancy rule could make such a change in the requirement for nursing home beds that proper or responsible planning will not actually be effected. As I understand the dissenting report, it is being suggested that as from time to time things may be very difficult, we should not do it in the first place. I think that is an insufficient argument to mount against our majority recommendations. I think it is more important to say that we unashamedly support the idea of responsible government planning in terms of the distribution and number of nursing home beds, particularly in regard to the number of dollars involved in the nursing home industry. I think it is important that from time to time, with changes that may affect nursing home bed occupancy, those matters be considered and taken into account-not in terms of not having planning in the first place but in consideration of the proposed changes being introduced. I do not find myself persuaded by the argument put forward in that dissenting report. I support the majority report. I differ with the dissenting report as to how we address what is an honourable return on investment in a nursing home. There are numbers of points raised in the dissenting report as to whether goodwill should be included in the valuation of the nursing home-particularly at a time of sale. The Committee appreciates that this has been a matter of considerable difficulty and that it remains a difficulty for the industry. In fact I think it could be said that it is an area that still needs to be addressed comprehensively and, presumably, by both the Government and the industry. However, it is true to say also that when a nursing home is built and a person occupies a bed that automatically guarantees a considerable number of government dollars, as part payment of the cost of that bed, to the nursing home. That is not a situation which is matched in almost any other industry in this country. Goodwill, which is really very much a government contribution as well as a good name notion, needs to be taken into account when looking at the sale of such a nursing home and when looking at the whole pricing and fee structure in that area. That is a very important point. It is something that the Committee spent much time and took much evidence on. I am not persuaded by the arguments in the dissenting report. I also disagree with the dissenting report in respect of requirements by the Committee on the display of nursing home ownership. Much of the evidence taken by the Committee addressed the question of who owned nursing homes. We discovered it was very difficult to know who owned a nursing home. Very often company names were involved. The names of some members of the medical profession or relatives of medical professionals, or the names of sub-companies of other companies, were involved. To find out who actually were the owners of a nursing home was a considerable hunt and chase task. The Committee felt that it was very important the ownership of nursing homes be displayed in some easy way so that people coming into that nursing home, particularly people visiting or people looking to be admitted to such a nursing home, would have the option of reading a list of owners and knowing who they were. In some way it is a disappointment that a committee should have to make a recommendation such as that. It highlights two things: One is the difficulty of knowing who has owned nursing homes in the past; the other is the possibility of conflict of interest which I referred to before. I think it would be part of a general increase in information giving people a better opportunity to make decisions. Sometimes people are not sure who owns a nursing home. Sometimes it is said: 'I thought it was a charitable nursing home or a home owned by so and so'. We feel it is a matter of importance that the ownership of nursing homes be clearly displayed so that kind of confusion is less possible. However, I presume there is always a possibility for some confusion. I finish my comments by alluding to the comprehensive nature of this report in its analysis of the nursing home industry. As I said earlier, I am delighted to have the report because I do not now have to hold all the information in my memory; I can look it up in the report. I think it is important that we have discovered just how extensive and complex the whole industry is. Again, I think it is important to say that with the focus of the quality of care as our priority in all our considerations, so we have set our recommendations. I again thank my colleagues and in particular Senator Giles for the very great effort and satisfactory result in producing this report. I am looking forward to what we will discover in tackling the private hospitals to produce the second half of the report. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(12.10) —As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and one of the senators who signed a dissenting report, I want to say a few words today about this report. I am sure the Senate will find that over the years in which the Committee has conducted its inquiry we have done plenty of work. I am pleased to have been a member of the Committee. I thank Senator Shirley Walters who was the first Chairman of the Committee for the work that she did while she was Chairman and, of course, Senator Giles for the work that she has done during the past few years. I would say that there will be another report in regard to private hospitals, which will probably be just as voluminous as this report on private nursing homes. So there will be plenty for people to read. In regard to the dissenting report, I want to speak about the number of nursing home beds. I sometimes think that we fail to take into consideration the aging population in Australia. That is very obvious when one travels around. Recently I had the opportunity to visit Sinnamon Retirement Village in Brisbane, which is a very big place. It is not exactly a nursing home; I suppose it is really a hostel care facility. There are many elderly people in the Retirement Village. There were many people aged over 80 or 90 in the hostel section who have not been placed in the nursing home section. A large number of people in our population these days are living longer. I feel that it is very important and necessary that enough provision should be made for nursing home care. I know that the Government is putting forward extra money for domiciliary care and that, of course, is very worth while. In fact, I wonder whether anybody would want to go into a nursing home unless one had to. Most people, especially women, as they get older-perhaps not so much men, who do not seem to be able to look after themselves as well as women-want to stay in their own homes. People like to stay in their own homes. I think that people want to go into a nursing home only when it is necessary. I think it is one's privilege to be able to decide what type of nursing home one goes into. The report talks about private nursing homes. There are deficit funded nursing homes as well. But I found that a great proportion of the nursing homes that I inspected were excellently run. Admittedly, we see some photographs-some are contained in the report-of some cases in which the care was not as good as it should have been. Perhaps the cost to the patients was not as much as they would have to pay in the higher standard homes. Nevertheless, I feel that the vast majority of the homes that we inspected were very well run. I pay tribute to the people who run the homes and who give people who need nursing home care the opportunity of being looked after. Of course, in my opinion tender loving care is as important as the nursing care. I suppose many people who reach the stage of being placed in a nursing home do not realise where they are. I feel that the loving care of the nurses is very important. I am quite sure that if families are not satisfied with the care that their parents are getting in a nursing home they will take some action to try to find a home in which the quality of care is better. One of my colleagues in the Senate told me about such a case a little while ago. I certainly do not think that the Government's proposal to reduce the number of nursing home beds is a very good idea. I have talked about the care of the patients. With regard to the ownership of nursing homes, I cannot see any reason why doctors should not be able to own nursing homes and why, if they want to, they cannot send their patients to those homes. I cannot quite understand the thinking in that regard. My attitude is this: Who will provide the finance for nursing homes? I am sure that in many cases the doctors would not find the nursing homes to be financially beneficial. That is another reason why we put in a dissenting report about the ownership of nursing homes. These are some of the matters that we felt very strongly about and which we wanted to bring before the Senate. I want to make my views known about these matters to explain why I signed the dissenting reports. I thank the staff who worked on the report. They have had a very big job. Their job, of course, is not yet complete because we must still bring forward the report on the remaining section of the inquiry. The care of the elderly is a very important subject in many ways. I am pleased to have been associated with the Committee which has done so much work on this section of the inquiry. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.16) —I will not go over the large area of agreement contained in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes. It is, as Senator Giles has already said, a very comprehensive report. We took a long time to complete our inquiry into one section of the terms of reference that were given to us. The other section concerns hospitals. The nursing home section having now been completed, I, along with other members of the Committee, would like to thank the staff for all of the hard work. I congratulate Senator Giles for her excellent chairmanship of the Committee. As I say, by far the majority of the recommendations had the full agreement of the Committee. There were four areas with which I disagreed and about which I presented minority reports. I think it would be appropriate if I referred to those areas. The first is in regard to Chapter 1 of the report which concerns what we should do about the number of nursing home beds. I believe, along with other members of the Committee, that there is a very large number of alternative services that can be given to the elderly prior to their entering nursing homes. Those alternatives would perhaps alleviate the necessity for their having to undergo nursing home care. There is a tremendous area. I do not believe that we have touched on it in full detail. I think it is very dangerous to come down with a specific number for nursing home beds. As I pointed out in the minority report, the policy of coming up with the maximum number of beds could be rendered inappropriate when governments take such action as they have just recently taken in regard to the 35-day rule. That practice could render any figure that we cared to set now inappropriate in the future. Governments take action and I do not believe we can come down with a hard and fast rule. That issue concerns the first of my dissenting reports. The second concerns fee setting. There has been, as we know, a tremendous problem with fee setting. The High Court of Australia has been involved time and again with the Department of Health in this area. Indeed, the Department chose to ignore the High Court's and other courts' decisions on many occasions. We had a thorough debate as to whether good will should be considered part of the value of a nursing home when it is bought. I believe that that is automatic. Good will is always part of any business. It does not matter what business one is buying; goodwill is part of the price. If the price is to be included in the fee structure, of course good will must be included. One cannot just say: 'It is a bit expensive for government to include it; therefore we will knock it out'. That is exactly what a majority of members of the Committee said: 'It is a bit too expensive for the government to include good will in the price, so we will just knock it out'. Good will is part and parcel of any profit made by the seller, and it is certainly a cost to the buyer. I believe that is another area of very justifiable concern outlined in the minority report. I come now to the subject of ownership of private nursing homes. As honourable senators know, the Committee has suggested that prior to the sale of a private nursing home the owner should notify the Government of quite a number of matters. I would regard that as a complete invasion of privacy. The Committee recommended: That proprietors of private enterprise nursing homes intending to sell their nursing home be required to notify the Commonwealth Department of Health of this intent and that such notification be made not less than 30 days before the sale. Under the recommendation proprietors would be required to inform the Department on quite a number of matters, one of which is: . . . an audited profit and loss account of the business and, if relevant, any actual or intending bankruptcy, insolvency and receivership proceedings. In other words, proprietors would have to tell the Department their private business and would have to make sure that they did so before a sale went through. I believe that this would be ludicrous invasion into private business and I do not go along with it. The excuse for the Committee making this recommendation was that a subsidy of $365m a year is paid to patients in private nursing homes; without this subsidy private nursing homes would be unable to keep their doors open; because private nursing homes, through their patients, receive this form of subsidy all details of ownership must be disclosed. The recommendation requires that a nursing home display its ownership details in its foyer and that the public know everything. Mr President, as you might well imagine, other industries receive far greater subsidies than does the nursing home industry. To prove that I need only point to the Budget Papers of last year which stated that the Commonwealth Government would pay out an estimated $1,053m in direct subsidies to industry. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other heavily subsidised industries. The Industries Assistance Commission report on passenger motor vehicle components states that in 1980, some time ago in financial terms, passenger vehicle purchasers-that is, the man in the street-paid about $1,000m to support the passenger vehicle industry. I repeat: $1,000m was paid by the man in the street to support the motor vehicle industry. It is not suggested that the names of all the company owners that get some sort of subsidy from the Government by way of tariffs and other such protection and all their details be displayed. Therefore, I believe that to pick on the nursing homes is discriminatory and unnecessary. I will now touch on the subject of doctors' ownership of private nursing homes. A recommendation has been made that doctors be not entitled to own private nursing homes to which they refer patients. Professor Opit came before the Committee to give evidence. I believe Professor Opit was completely irresponsible in the presentation of his evidence. He outlined all sorts of situations in which, he claimed, doctors were abusing the system. He gave us unsubstantiated evidence. When I asked whether he could substantiate-- Senator Giles —Mr President, I take a point of order. I seek your ruling. Professor Opit came before the Committee in the same way as did all other witnesses and gave evidence under oath. For the sake of the Committee's credibility I think I should bring that to your attention and request that Senator Walters not make such imputations on his integrity. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Walters is entitled to discuss the contents of the report and the evidence given before the Committee. Senator WALTERS —Thank you very much, Mr President. As I said, Professor Opit came before us and gave unsubstantiated evidence. I asked him whether he had any proof to support the evidence he was giving us. He said no. He did not claim that the evidence he gave us was substantiated. He said that he did not have anything to prove what he was saying. He said that it was up to us to establish proof. It was only because he made that submission to the Committee that the Committee did what Senator Giles said it did and conducted such thorough research on the ownership of both private hospitals and nursing homes. As Senator Giles has already pointed out, the evidence we received from even a private search that had to be done was to the effect that doctors did not indulge in all the underhand business that Professor Opit had suggested. We discovered that, indeed, 88 doctors had financial interests in nursing homes throughout Australia and that the majority of such homes were interstate, well out of the doctors' areas of practise. The doctors had a financial interest in the medical field about which they had knowledge. Only six doctors had referred patients to their own nursing homes. No evidence at all was put to the Committee that those six doctors had done anything wrong. I believe that Professor Opit did a great service to the Committee, not in the way he expected but because we were able to investigate this matter thoroughly and we came up with no evidence at all to substantiate all those very nasty claims that he made. I was very pleased that we went as far as we did in researching this matter. That case underlines how dangerous it can be for a committee to refer to unsubstantiated evidence. As I have just told honourable senators, Professor Opit made all sorts of claims that were never substantiated, no matter how deeply we searched. I believe he was quite irresponsible in making those claims. I come now to further unsubstantiated evidence that the majority of the Committee insisted on putting in the report. If honourable senators compare that evidence with Professor Opit's submission to the Committee perhaps it will show clearly why I objected to it. The Committee was referred to two phone-ins on the problems in nursing homes. I think there were 610 calls, two of which were substantiated. I understand that it is very difficult to substantiate complaints made on phone-ins, but in Western Australia an effort was made to substantiate the complaints and only two of them were substantiated. No attempt was made in New South Wales. That the Committee, in its report put down all of the complaints and reiterated the most emotive of them, even though they were completely unsubstantiated, and used them as evidence of bad nursing home care was, I believe, completely irresponsible and was just headline-grabbing by that Committee. I was very critical of the Committee for including unsubstantiated evidence, in the report, and consequently I made a minority report in this area. A number of photographs to which reference has been made in this debate were included in the report. Photographs of patients 1 and 2 showed bedsores that were most unattractive and emotional, and those photographs were printed in the report in colour. The nursing home involving those patients had already been closed by order before the report came down. As for patient 3, the home had already changed hands and is now of a very high standard. Patient 4 came from an area that was altogether outside the Committee's terms of reference. Before I became a member of this place I was a nurse and am well aware of how unattractive bedsores look and how difficult they are to nurse. It was never said at any stage that the Committee also had evidence that patients were brought from public hospitals into nursing homes with similarly horrific bedsores. The whole emphasis was to the effect that this occurred only in private nursing homes. This is certainly not a fact. Public nursing homes also have this problem. It is a most unfortunate area, and I believe that given today's new technology, with the additional facilities that are available, such cases should be few and far between. Those photographs were put in the report even though the committee has visited many nursing homes in Australia and found few badly run; they were in the minority. Indeed it was not just a minority, because 49 per cent could be regarded as a minority-it was a vast minority, a very small number of nursing homes that were very badly run. We saw some of those homes, but as to the homes in which photographs were taken, two had closed, one had changed hands, and one was outside the Committee's terms of reference. I believe those photographs were included for emotive reasons only and by way of headline grabbing, which does a great disservice to the Senate. On the question whether doctors should own nursing homes, which touches on the final minority report I brought in, I do not think Senator Crowley understood Senator Peter Baume's interjection when he said that it is a moral issue. Of course it is a moral issue. There are bad and good in every walk of life. If a doctor wants to own a nursing home and wants to own a private hospital and abuse the system by moving patients between the private hospital and the private nursing home, do honourable senators believe that legislation to the effect that a doctor is not allowed to own a nursing home will stop him? Of course it will not. One cannot legislate for that sort of moral matter. The doctor concerned will put up a nominee but he will still have the financial interest and will carry on in that way. There are good and bad in every profession and in every walk of life. One can never legislate to cover those areas. It is completely unwarranted and unnecessary to try to bring down a recommendation that doctors not be permitted to own private nursing homes to which they can send patients when the Committee has had no substantiated evidence and has been into that area very thoroughly. The Committee is only half way through its terms of reference. It has ahead of it the private hospitals in Australia, and I look forward to serving on the Committee in that area. The Committee has worked very well. There are only one or two small areas in which there is disagreement, and I emphasise that by far the majority of the recommendations had the full agreement of the entire Committee. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(12.35) —I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I want to pick up a couple of points that have not been mentioned by other speakers. I also wish to reply briefly to a number of points made by Senator Walters. I, too, was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, but came into its deliberations late, as did other members who were appointed to the Committee after the double dissolution. Unfortunately, I did not have the benefit of visiting the nursing homes involved in the inquiry, although in the course of my work I have visited other nursing homes. I want to mention the reactions that I have experienced to the report since it was tabled. Due to printing difficulties, the report is not yet in print. That is unfortunate because I have found a big demand in the community among people who are interested in reading the report. However, members of the Committee were supplied with a few copies of the report which we have been able to lend out to interested individuals and organisations. I have found a great deal of interest in the community, particularly from organisations concerned with care of the aged, and in general very wide support for the recommendations of that report. Incidentally, I have found among those who have read the report no objections whatever to the inclusion of the photographs. In fact, the position is quite the reverse, especially from organisations concerned with the level of care offered in nursing homes. What has not been mentioned so far in this debate is the number of young people who are in nursing homes. It is not generally recognised, unless people have friends or relatives in such a position, that a growing number of young people-in some cases as young as the late teens and in their twenties-reside or 'live' or 'are patients in' in nursing homes, often as a result of motor car accidents, diving accidents and so on, but also as a result of slow degenerative illnesses. I should like it put on record that the Committee and its report did not neglect the needs of those residents. The report refers in one of its recommendations to the fact that nursing homes specifically set up for young people should be funded separately from other nursing homes and that they might more appropriately be put in the handicapped persons assistance program. It was also recommended that when young people are in nursing homes with a mix of ages, special provision should be made for those young people, whose needs are quite different from those of the frail aged. In the limited amount of time that is left to me before the adjournment of the debate, I wish to mention one other positive aspect of the report before I come to a couple of criticisms of Senator Walters's remarks. A good deal has been said in this debate about nursing homes, but I would stress that the Committee also gave attention to alternatives to nursing homes, some of which were mentioned by Senator Walters in her remarks, such as domiciliary care. That is an aspect of which the Committee is mindful and would like to see taken up in some detail pehaps, not by the present Committee but by another more appropriate committee or elsewhere. Such a committee could consider not only the subject of domiciliary care and the level of community support to the elderly who wish and are able to remain in their own homes with some community support, but also the provision of help such as an effective, low cost alarm system, which is often all that is needed for elderly persons to stay in their own homes so that they can get help if necessary. Returning to a couple of points that Senator Walters made, she seems to see it as objectionable that notification of ownership should be displayed in nursing homes and available to people who are to be admitted to nursing homes. It is not just a question of the subsidy, but I think any government subsidy implies a responsibility on the part of the people receiving it. I know that in theory that subsidy goes to the patient, but in fact it is paid to the nursing home. It also implies accountability to the taxpayers, the people who are supplying that subsidy. More importantly, it is about a responsibility to residents and their relatives, who have a right to know who owns that nursing home and who may then, if they wish, exercise a different choice if an alternative is available and they do not wish to be admitted, in light of the information on ownership. We have in Victoria similar legislation to what is proposed and it does not seem to create any problems. The parallel was drawn with other industries. Many of us would like to see other industries which have been heavily subsidised in the past made more accountable from the taxpayers' point of view. However, we are not talking about other industries at the moment; we are talking about nursing homes. Senator Walters mentioned that there was little evidence of doctors indulging in underhand business and that the report showed that only 88 doctors were actually registered as owners. But as Senator Giles has pointed out, we were not able to find out who were the real owners behind the large numbers of students and housewives who appear on the records of ownership. I know a lot of students and housewives and none of them could, of their own account, own large pieces of real estate or large businesses, as many of those nursing homes are. Even with company title searches it was not possible to find out who were the real owners behind what I might call shadow owners-I will not go so far as to call them puppets-but I think, without knowing who those owners are, we could hazard a pretty good guess as to who many of them would be. I think it was unfortunate that those remarks were made about Professor Opit, who has a very high standing among the organisations that I have been consulting with since this report came down as a very credible witness. We have had recent arguments in this place about degrees of proof, and I think this is another case where an unreasonable degree of proof is being asked for. Finally, I am very glad that this report has been brought down. I look forward to the second half being brought down later this year. I hope that the report will be generally available to the public very shortly. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.43) —I want to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes in Australia specifically from the point of view of the way it will affect the Australian Capital Territory. The recommendations refer to the provision of nursing home beds and the proportion of the number of people over the age of 70 in the population. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, Canberra has fewer nursing home beds for that proportion than other places. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), over the two years that he has held the position, seems to have done very little about remedying the situation. It now would take two years or more for an elderly, frail person classified as in need to get into a nursing home bed in Canberra. There are about 109 such people classified at present. Morling Lodge still has one bed which cannot be occupied. There are other beds which cannot be occupied because of other types of disputes. Disputes have been rife throughout our hospital system over the last two years and at their worst, of course, in the last few weeks. It is the elderly who have suffered most as a result of this, I would suggest. There are so many examples, and on occasions when I get the opportunity I will tell the Senate about what has been happening. I cannot let the opportunity pass without referring to it. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to standing order 28A I table my warrant nominating Senators Coleman, Colston, Elstob, Haines, Jessop, Jones, MacGibbon, Scott, Sibraa and Townley to act as Temporary Chairmen of Committees when the Chairman of Committees is absent. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. I ask whether the Government agrees with the view put to the 9 February meeting of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, when she said: I think the time has come when real contradictions now appear between our fundamental role in peace and disarmament and between the American alliance. Is this not directly opposed to the policy of the Government in which Senator Ryan holds Cabinet rank, a policy which endorses the American alliance and stresses the need for an effective deterrence to avoid nuclear war? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government's position on the alliance has been stated and restated in recent days by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and, indeed, the whole Cabinet in the endorsement it gave, which was widely reported, not only to the alliance but also to our policy of disarmament which is, as we see it, inextricably connected with that. I have nothing further to add on the other aspects of the honourable senator's question. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to advise the Senate, since this is the first opportunity he has had to do so, whether the Government sees any contradiction between its fundamental role in peace and disarmament and its maintenance of the American alliance. Senator GARETH EVANS —No, the Government sees no contradiction whatsoever and will be happy to explain that in the course of what will no doubt be innumerable debates in this place in forthcoming weeks. Senator ROBERTSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I ask: Has the German company, Urangesellschaft, applied to have uranium exported to France? Is it likely that this uranium will be used by the French electric power utility? Has he received any advice from the French utility as to the possibility of its purchasing this material? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the German company, UG for short, has informed the Government that it wishes to import 100 short tons of uranium oxide through a French company, Enership SA, on a vessel due to sail from Darwin on 27 February, this being Ranger uranium supplied by Energy Resources of Australia pursuant to a contract with the German firm, Urangesellschaft. It is also the case that we have had assurances from the only possible peaceful user of that uranium in France, the utility, Electricite de France, that it has no contracts or arrangements with Enership, nor does it intend to enter into any and nor does it, although this is a matter of common knowledge rather than something about which we have been specifically advised, have a need for uranium, having extensive stocks of some 30,000 tons on hand. The communication from Electricite de France to which I refer is a cable to ERA Sydney from Monsieur Janin of the French utility. I seek leave to have the text of that document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Mr Bernard Fisk E.R.A. Sydney Dear Bernard, By this Telex, I want to confirm what I just told Peter Bradfield E.D.F. has no intention to buy material coming directly or indirectly from E.R.A. and has no arrangement with Enership S.A. Best Regards, R. JaninElectricite De FranceService Des Combustibles Senator GARETH EVANS —I also indicate for the record that the substance of that communication has been confirmed orally to Australian diplomatic representatives in Paris and we have had cabled advice of that confirmation. As to the larger questions lying behind Senator Robertson's question, it is the Government's belief, as was stated yesterday by the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, that the proposed shipment to the French company and to France is what may be described as a commercial ruse designed to encourage a refusal by the Australian Government of an export approval for this shipment, given our well-known policy in relation to uranium intended for end use in France. It is a ruse no doubt encouraged by the circumstance that the spot price for uranium on the open market at the moment is about half that under which it would need to be supplied pursuant to this contract. The Government has not been taken in by this fairly transparent exercise. Export approval has in fact been granted. I am confident, as the Minister for Resources and Energy responsible for this, that the safeguards system which continues to operate in relation to France pursuant to bilateral agreements both with France and Euratom will ensure that, even if the present contract amount of uranium is delivered to France in the first instance, it will not in fact be used there. To avoid boring the Senate further on this subject, Mr President, I simply seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of Press statements released yesterday by both the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, and myself which fully explain the Government's position on this matter. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- GERMAN COMPANY ATTEMPTS TO SUBVERT AUSTRALIAN URANIUM POLICY (Statement by the Minister for Trade,Mr J. S. Dawkins, MP) The Minister for Trade today revealed that a West German company involved with the Ranger Uranium Project had attempted to exploit the Australian Government's ban on uranium shipments to France to its own commercial advantage. In doing so it had engaged in conduct which the Government considers to be highly inappropriate in apparently seeking to create a device which would enable it to extricate itself from contractual relationships with the Australian uranium producer Energy Resources of Australia (ERA). The company concerned is Urangesellschaft (UG) incorporated in the Federal Republic of Germany. Ownership of UG is held by each of three West German companies in equal parts viz Steag AG; Metallgesellschaft mbH, and Veba AG. Through its 44% ownership of Veba AG the West German Government holds (beneficially) 15% of UG. In 1980, UG, a 4% foreign equity holder in ERA, contracted to purchase 5920 short tons (st) of uranium oxide from the Ranger uranium project over the period 1982-1996. About 4800st, currently valued at more than A$385 million remains to be supplied. UG has informed the Government that it wishes to export 100st of uranium oxide to a French company, Enership S.A., on a vessel due to sail from Darwin on 27 February. The Government's policy banning exports for France has been widely publicised and is well known. Yet the government understands that UG entered into a contract with Enership in December 1984 to supply it with Australian uranium. Enership is a French trading company which, my Department advises me has not previously traded in uranium. Its normal business is apparently in brokerage and trade in liquefied gases, services and engineering. On the evidence available to me, it is apparent that UG has contrived a situation where it hopes, and expects, the Government to block the shipment. This could pave the way for UG eventually to withdraw from its ERA contract without penalty. Electricite de France (EdF), the only French utility with a use for such uranium has no contracts with Enership; nor does it have a need for uranium, having extensive stocks of some 30,000 tonnes on hand and supply commitments of non Australian sources of about 8,500 tonnes per annum i.e. sufficient for its requirements until the early 1990's. It is our belief that it has not been the intention of the parties concerned that the consignment remain for use in France, and I would take this opportunity to emphasise that the ban on uranium for end use in France remains firmly in place. I have given consideration to banning the shipment but to do so would prejudice Australia's trade interests and ERA's corporate interests over the long term. Banning the shipment would be pointless as the Government is convinced the material is not destined for use in France. In the circumstances I have decided not to interfere with the commercial arrangements and have approved the export. These tactics by UG are out of step with the normally good standards of behaviour by foreign companies in Australia. The Government regrets UG considered it necessary to adopt such tactics. The Government looks to better standards of corporate behaviour from companies established in Australia and which conduct business in this country. The Government's policy on uranium supply is well known. The reasons for suspending exports to France is well understood. Apart from one contract between Queensland Mines and EdF (which has been the subject of previous Ministerial statements) all contracts have been and will continue to be honoured. As a matter of courtesy, I contacted the Ambassador for the Federal Republic of Germany to inform him of this situation. He has informed me that this is not a matter over which his government has any influence. I accept this. 21 February 1985 MINISTER FOR RESOURCES AND ENERGY SENATOR GARETH EVANS Q.C. 21 February 1985 14/85 URANIUM SAFEGUARDS SYSTEM I endorse the action taken today by the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, in approving a shipment of Ranger uranium pursuant to the contract with the German firm Urangesellschaft. It is clear from the material available to the Minister that the uranium will not in fact be used in France, and so no question arises of any breach of Australia's present policy. No difficulty will in fact arise in tracking the end use of this material, if it is in fact delivered in the first instance to France rather than Germany. Once the shipment enters France, it will be covered by the terms of our bilateral Safeguards Agreements with that country and with Euratom, and the notification and tracking procedures under that Agreement will apply. If it should first enter Germany, it will be covered by the Euratom Agreement. France is obliged under the Agreement to seek prior consent before any Australian-origin nuclear material is transferred out of its territory. The tracking of the material, here as elsewhere, is done by the Australian Safeguards Office (ASO), based in Sydney, which operates a highly sophisticated and comprehensive accounting system to ensure the proper implementation not only of the kind of bilateral agreements involved here, but also the multilateral safeguards arrangements established by the International Atomic Energy Agency under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Before any exports are authorised the ASO is in touch with its counterparts in all countries through which exports pass. (In the case of Europe this body is the Euratom Safeguards Directorate which tracks and accounts for uranium in the EC). Australia has 10 bilateral safeguards agreements in place which embrace 17 countries. Each approved export contract provides for uranium exported under those contracts to be subject to our bilateral safeguards agreements. The agreements themselves provide that transfers to third countries can only take place with Australian consent. Hence commercial customers not only are required to ensure that uranium is used consistently with peaceful purposes as provided for in our agreements, but they are unable to onsell any uranium to countries with which we do not have a safeguards agreement. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind the Minister of the Hawke Labor Government's endorsement of the convention of the collective responsibility of Cabinet as, to quote from the Government's Cabinet handbook, 'central to the Cabinet system of government'. Does the handbook also say that Ministers are expected to give their full support to the Government, and to refrain from public comment in advance of issues being considered in Cabinet and their endorsement by Cabinet and Caucus? Does the Minister agree that he breached the convention by saying, as reported in the Melbourne Age of Tuesday, 5 February, that he believed the decision to allow a couple of United States planes to refuel as part of the testing of the MX missile should be reviewed and that he was 'not very enthusiastic about it', and that the Minister for Education did likewise when she said she would not be defending the MX decision? Senator BUTTON —I am not familiar with all the terminology of the Cabinet handbook but I am familiar with the broad thrust of it. The point of Senator Messner's question is whether I said something at a particular stage which was in breach of something which was suggested in the Cabinet handbook. I do not know whether Senator Messner was purporting to quote me when he read something- Senator Messner —From a newspaper article reporting you. Senator BUTTON —He read from a newspaper article. I did not say that. The expression which is familiar and which I did use, and which reflects my state of mind, is that I was not enthusiastic. That expression I did use. He is drawing a very long legal bow, if I may put it in those terms. I suggest that the honourable senator gets his shadow Attorney-General to run his eye over that to see whether the expression that I was not enthusiastic about a particular thing was foreshadowing a Cabinet decision on the matter in any respect. Insofar as his question goes to statements allegedly made by Senator Ryan, if he had been here earlier at Question Time he would have heard the Minister for Resources and Energy give to that question a very able answer which covers the points the honourable senator raised. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the call by the Federal Executive of the Australian Medical Association for doctors in New South Wales hospitals to resume normal duties? Does the Minister believe the stand taken by Dr Thompson provides a reasonable solution to the New South Wales public hospital dispute? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware of the agreement which was reached between the Australian Medical Association and the New South Wales and Federal governments in this long and protracted dispute with doctors in New South Wales who call themselves procedural specialists. I was involved in the negotiations on this matter for some three weeks in Dr Blewett's absence and I am certainly very pleased that at last the Australian Medical Association, through Dr Thompson, has asked the medical practitioners involved in New South Wales to return to normal duties. I think that is the only responsible course of action open to caring medical practitioners who are genuinely concerned for the welfare of their patients but in particular for the welfare of the New South Wales public hospital system which, in fact, has long had the reputation of being one of the best in the world. I hope, as someone who trained in that system, that it will retain the reputation it has. I believe this will be achieved, but it can be achieved only if doctors react positively to Dr Thompson's reasonable and moderate call to return to normal duties. In my time in negotiating with the procedural specialists and the Australian Medical Association it was always obvious that there was a considerable difference between the approach taken by Dr Thompson and his colleagues and that of Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney and their colleagues. The initial claims that were put to the New South Wales Government and to the Federal Government were met by the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government and were to be the basis of negotiation, we hoped, between the governments and the medical practitioners. Each time a position was reached whereby we thought negotiations were about to start, Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney and their colleagues persistently changed the ground rules-changed their claims. The situation became absolutely ridiculous last week when they met the Prime Minister and Dr Blewett, as well as Mr Mulock and Mr Wran, and produced, for the first time, demands for changes in Federal legislation which they had never mentioned to me, Dr Blewett or Mr Hawke in all the previous negotiations. Trying to negotiate with people who act in this way is absolutely impossible. Unfortunately, the procedural specialists, led by Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney, have attempted to personalise this dispute. They have attempted to put all the blame and all the problems in negotiations on the shoulders of Dr Blewett. Dr Blewett acted at all times with Government authority. He acted at all times as a result of Cabinet decisions and decisions of Cabinet committees. At no time was there a claim by the procedural specialists that in some way the approach of Mr Hawke, myself and Mr Wran was different from that of Dr Blewett. This, I think, was demonstrated in the meetings earlier this week. I hope that the doctors will return to normal duties, as they were asked to do by Dr Thompson. I hope that the Opposition will support Dr Thompson and the Australian Medical Association in their reasonable approach-an approach, I might add, which was also taken by the presidents of the three largest colleges of procedural specialists in this country. If, however, a large number of doctors persist in following the stubborn, belligerent and provocative line of Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney, I am afraid the dispute will continue and a very fine hospital service will remain under threat. What is even worse, a large number of patients in New South Wales will be inadequately treated. I do not think that would be to the benefit of anybody, let alone any of us who may travel through New South Wales at some time. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about the MX missile affair. In November 1984 did Australia vote in the United Nations for a Nuclear Freeze? In August 1984 did Australia support a Nuclear Free Zone in the South Pacific? Did not the Nuclear Freeze resolution include an agreement that Australia would not assist in testing or monitoring new delivery systems as well as weapons? I emphasise that the delivery systems were included. Is it true that one year before the Government voted in this way the Prime Minister of this country and other Ministers had already agreed to assist in monitoring the testing of the MX missiles with the Americans? How did the Government reconcile its vote for no further testing in the Nuclear Freeze resolution while it had secretly agreed with the Americans to do the opposite? How does the Government propose to explain this duplicity and massive untruth to its partners in the South Pacific Forum when it is asked for an explanation, as it surely will be, at the next meeting? Senator GARETH EVANS —In November 1984 Australia supported a resolution in the United Nations calling for a mutual and verifiable nuclear freeze. Similarly, in that session we supported-in a very important resolution moved by Australia-the immediate resumption of discussions with a view to negotiations of the comprehensive test ban treaty. I take it Senator Chipp acknowledges that our sincerity in pursuing those particular courses is not in issue. As to any alleged incompatibility of that support with the initial support that was given to logistical backup for the MX test in the South Pacific, the Government took the view that it was not incompatible with our stance in the United Nations that we should acknowledge the possibility of some continuing testing of delivery systems for weapons either of a counterforce or retaliatory nature until such time as the freeze, which we all want, is in place. This is really a position based on considerations of elementary realism. There is simply no evidence that the Soviet Union, for its part, is standing still so far as its weapons, delivery systems and developments are concerned. The reality is that a freeze and the downward arms spiral that we all wish to see following that-in pursuit of the Palme Commission type of concept of common security as distinct from continued deterrence and the mutually assured destruction, which we unequivocally stand for-is not something that can be reasonably achieved or that we can reasonably expect any nuclear power unilaterally to start of its own accord. I make the further point-this is something that the Government has had regard to-that the kind of testing which was involved by the United States was not incompatible with its obligations under the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks II treaty. Having said that, I make it clear that Australia's initial agreement to give minor logistic support to the proposed test firing of the MX delivery system was not to be taken as approval for the MX itself-Mr Beazley has made this perfectly clear-any more than it is to be taken as amounting to approval of any other aspect of the strategic modernisation program. Our attitude to the strategic modernisation program, of which the MX is but part, was clearly spelt out by the Prime Minister and subsequently the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the last week. To ensure that our logistic support-which we regarded, until relieved of that obligation by the United States, as being an incident of our position as a member of the alliances-was not to be taken as approval of the MX itself is the very reason why the initial decision by Mr Hawke and other Ministers was taken to give that support only on the basis that the splash down occurred outside Australia's territorial waters, because to allow it to take place within territorial waters would no doubt have been construed, and possibly correctly so, as support for the MX itself. As to the compatibility of all of this with our position on the South Pacific nuclear free zone, again I make the point that it is the Government's position that there is no basic inconsistency in its very firm and unequivocal commitment to a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, and its having agreed last year initially, until relieved of the obligation by the decision of the United States, to provide minor logistic support. We have noted in this respect that the treaties establishing existing nuclear weapon free zones in Latin America and Antarctica, and the half dozen or so proposals now extant to establish such zones in other parts of the world, do not envisage a ban on activities such as that involved in this instance-despite what Senator Chipp put to the Senate, in my understanding-nor do the principles for a South Pacific nuclear free zone adopted by the South Pacific Forum last year cover a test of this kind. As a matter of policy-this has also been made clear in a number of recent statements-the Government saw the United States approach about the MX tests as essentially a one-off exercise. We would certainly oppose regular testing of intercontinental ballistic missile systems in the South Pacific and we would, of course, continue to oppose unequivocally testing of explosive devices of a nuclear kind or of any kind in the South Pacific. The circumstances which led the Government to reconsider its position, after having made the original decision on the bases I have outlined, have been sufficiently explained in the last couple of days publicly by the Prime Minister. I have nothing to add to that. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of any support for the stand taken by Drs Shepherd and Aroney outside the ranks of procedural specialists in New South Wales? What effect will their isolation have on this dispute? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I have just become aware that a three-page statement has been put out by the Hon. Jim Carlton MP, former Minister for Health, supporting the stand taken by Drs Shepherd and Aroney. It condemns Dr Thompson's stand and, therefore, also condemns the stand by the Presidents of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australasian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I would hope that Mr Carlton's statement is not official Opposition policy; nor, I would also hope, does it reflect the attitude of the Opposition in this dispute. Mr Carlton's statement is, in fact, wild. It is inflammatory and it can serve only to sabotage the Australian Medical Association's and the Government's efforts to restore normal services in hospitals in New South Wales. I quote from Dr Thompson's statement in which he said that there are two basic principles in the code of ethics: I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity. The health of my patient will be my first consideration. I suggest that that can be contrasted with the attitude of Dr Shepherd who, on a television program in New South Wales, said that what we had was war and in wartime some people may die. He thought a dispute like this was, in fact, worth a life. He was also quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of last Saturday as saying: The only thing this Government understands is someone standing with one foot on their throats and the other kicking their private parts . . . they will have to be hurt a lot more before they'll give in. That is the sort of standard of debate we have had to put up with from gentlemen like this. We have not taken part in exchanging rhetoric and abuse of that type with Dr Shepherd, nor will we. I think it is a great pity that Mr Carlton has, in fact, decided to come out and support the procedural specialists in this way. But I believe that, in fact, most procedural specialists do not and will not in these circumstances support Dr Shepherd and Dr Aroney and their colleagues. I hope that other members of the Opposition in making any contributions to this debate in fact will make far more positive contributions than those that have been made by Mr Carlton. There may have been some people in the community who were concerned that a man who was Minister for Health in fact was dropped from the shadow ministry in the way he was. I think the statement he has put out today indicates that for once Mr Peacock was right. I hope that Mr Carlton stays where he is and that any further of his contributions such as this are condemned by the Leader of the Opposition, by the Opposition spokesman on health and by any other responsible member of the Opposition or, in fact, by any other responsible member of this Parliament. Senator LEWIS —My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I hope that he will be able to give us some clarification of the answer given by the former Attorney-General to Senator Chipp's question. I refer the Minister to an interview with Mr Richard Butler, the Government's Ambassador for Disarmament, on the AM program of 5 February. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, in referring to the decision to offer limited assistance for the MX missile test-a decision which was still standing at that stage-Mr Butler said: Where would we be in seeking to pursue real means of disarmament with the United States if we refused them the right to land a couple of planes in Australia, which they are going to use to monitor this missile shot. Now, our credibility would be completely reduced. Does the Minister agree that Mr Butler was right in that statement or does he support the call from Mr Robert Tickner, MHR, for Mr Butler's resignation for making that statement? Senator BUTTON —I do not support the call of Mr Robert Tickner, MHR, which I heard on the PM program. Senator Lewis asked me whether I essentially agree with the statement made by Mr Richard Butler, the Ambassador for Disarmament, prior to the visit of the Prime Minister to the United States which contains the essential phrase, '. . . where would we be but for these things?' I think the answer to the question of where we would be is: 'Where we are now'. Senator Chaney —Exactly. With no credibility. With your credibility reduced. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney said: 'With no credibility. With your credibility reduced'. Where we are now is as a result of the statement by the President of the United States and by the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz. If Senator Lewis wishes me to do so, I will incorporate in Hansard the messages and statements made by Mr Shultz and the President of the United States on this issue. Senator Lewis —Please do. The PRESIDENT —Does the Minister seek leave to have something incorporated? Senator BUTTON —Yes, Mr President. My only concern was whether I was in a position to seek leave to incorporate the President's statement at this stage. I have a copy of the cable from Mr Shultz regarding this matter which followed on from the decision by the United States Government in relation to Australia's co-operation in the monitoring of the MX missile test. I seek leave to have that cable incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The cable read as follows- ''I am pleased by the announcement of Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 19 February that his Cabinet has reaffirmed Australia's support for the ANZUS Alliance and for the full responsibilities that the Alliance entails. We note that the Prime Minister described ship visits and U.S./Australian joint facilities as continuing fundamentals of the Australian/U.S. Alliance relationship. We welcome these reaffirmations of Australia's commitment to its ties with the United States''. Senator BUTTON —So the answer to the question is yes, that is where we are now. I have no doubt we will have the opportunity to debate what was put by way of interjection in the course of my answer to Senator Lewis's question regarding the question of credibility in relation to the ANZUS alliance over a long period. I personally look forward to that debate. Senator Withers —Which side are you going to be on? Senator BUTTON —I look forward to contributions from Senator Lewis and Senator Withers who, over many years, have seen the ANZUS alliance and the relationship of the Liberal Party in Australia with the ANZUS alliance as equivalent to a pox doctor's clerk. That is not something which this Government is concerned to do. We want a mature relationship with the United States of America. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of the special need for parents caring for physically and mentally handicapped children to have air conditioned homes and transport for their children? Is the Minister also aware of the particular hardship being faced by those parents on low incomes who provide these necessities for their children? Can the Minister say whether any consideration is being given to providing a means tested allowance or sales tax exemption for such equipment which is used for health and medical purposes? Senator GRIMES —I am aware that some people have special needs for air conditioned transport and housing, especially for physically, and some mentally, disabled children. The schemes which are available, particularly the program of aids for disabled people, to provide assistance for disabled people in the community, do not include the provision of air conditioning units, nor do they include the provision of any other assistance to enable people to have air conditioning units. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service does not cater for children, so that the air conditioning requirements of children are not covered by this route. The particular problem to which Senator Elstob referred, from memory, was not raised by any parents-if it was, it was raised by very few parents-or disabled people in the very extensive Handicapped Programs Review that we have just completed. The general issue of means testing for the provision of aids for disabled people and tax exemption or tax deductibility for the provision of such aids is raised in the report of the Review, which will shortly be available to honourable senators. I point out to Senator Elstob that the cost of the provision of aids such as air conditioning to disabled people generally, and disabled children in particular, would be considerable. I will obtain some figures, if possible, about the costs of tax exemptions or tax deductions in this area. I hope that Senator Elstob and other honourable senators will consider the suggestions made in the Handicapped Programs Review report which will shortly be available, in the hope that we can all overcome what I admit is a very unsatisfactory situation in regard to the existing programs for the provision of aids of this type. Senator COLLARD —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs responded to Senator Peter Cook's list of questions which he announced on national radio on 4 February-I think it was on the PM program-that he wanted to put to members of the Security Committee of Cabinet? In particular, can he say whether Mr Hayden has told Senator Cook whether the Government opposes the MX system as such, a system Senator Cook claims would destabilise the present nuclear balance? I ask whether Senator Cook is right about the MX or whether the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, was correct when, on 5 February, he said: A good part of the United States current policy, both in the area of space and in the area of MX development, has been brought about because of what the Soviet Union has done. The Soviet Union has got massive capacity in long range intercontinental missiles of the kind that MX represents and they have already involved themselves in considerable star wars research. Senator GARETH EVANS —As to the first part of the question, all I can say is that I constantly see Senator Cook and Mr Hayden with their heads together in the corridor. I am quite certain that in the course of one of those conversations Mr Hayden has answered very fully whatever concerns Senator Cook might have expressed about this issue. As to the latter part of the question concerning the realism of any unilateral attempt at either freezing or, more particularly, disarming in circumstances in which the Soviet Union is manifestly continuing to arm itself, I think I answered that part of the question in my earlier response to Senator Chipp. Of course, I acknowledge, as the Government acknowledges, the need for any arms reduction exercise to be in the context of what we have always described as a balanced, verifiable and agreed set of arms reduction proposals. It is not something that one can embark upon unilaterally. It must be a matter of agreement and diplomacy, and that is the delicate process in which the Australian Government is doing its best to assist. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs aware of a recent finding reported by Senator Messner following a meeting with Young Liberals in South Australia that the greatest problem facing youth today is unemployment? Can the Minister make clear that the Government understood this prior to coming to office and has, under Minister Ryan, set in train a number of initiatives for Australian youth? As this is the International Year of Youth, can the Minister elaborate on the current provisions of this Government, the plans to provide training and financial assistance for young people and when these projects will be set in train? Senator BUTTON —I read many things but I regret that I have not read all of Senator Messner's Press statements. On second thoughts, I do not regret that I have not read all of Senator Messner's Press statements. Senator Crowley's question is in two parts. One part is directed to what the Government is doing in respect of International Youth Year. The more important part relates to the general question of youth unemployment. In connection with International Youth Year, the Government has embarked on a five-point plan to assist in drawing attention to issues in that designated year. This year the State and Territory governments as well as non-government organisations will receive funding for International Youth Year from the Commonwealth Government. The sum of $2.3m will be spent on International Youth Year matters over three financial years. Of that sum, $140,000 was spent in 1983-84, primarily on publicity, consultation and training. For 1984-85, $600,000 has been offered to the State and Territory governments for projects, co-ordination and promotion of International Youth Year. Approximately $200,000 has been granted to national youth organisations, and funds have been devoted to national promotion, public relations and publicity. In addition, all State and Territory governments have committed funds for International Youth Year. Among those projects which are to be funded is a project involving the appointment of officers to strengthen networks of voluntary organisations, particularly linking organisations working for the welfare of young Aboriginals, disabled youth, young women and youth in country areas. There will be similar projects for youth arts festivals, for the youth component of more general arts festivals and for a number of initiatives of that kind. All those things having been said, I am quite happy to make available to Senator Crowley a more detailed answer in respect of the programs for the International Youth Year initiatives. This Government and all thinking Australians will be very concerned about the high level of youth unemployment in Australia and about the steps which may be taken to alleviate that high level. Senator Harradine —Even in your own government departments. Senator BUTTON —Even if it embraces the subject of Senator Harradine's interjection. The most relevant action taken in relation to this issue is the Government's current examination of youth income support programs and more particularly the review of the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs and the report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on labour market programs. The Government, as a matter of urgency, is conducting a review of both of those reports and is examining the sorts of initiatives which it might take in response to them. Having said that, I reiterate that youth unemployment, though quite dramatic and stark in its incidence, is part of an overall unemployment problem which we have in Australia. That overall unemployment problem can be addressed in the longer term only by sustained economic growth. Of course, we have to deal with the special incidence of youth unemployment but it is part of a wider problem which involves the question of continuing and strong economic growth in this country, which is perhaps the subject of more questions and of other venues for debate. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, relates to the Cabinet committee which deals with matters of national security. Due to the very nature of the matters that it is required to consider, does this committee adopt different procedures from other committees of the Cabinet? For example, are all of its decisions subject to the process of endorsement by the full Cabinet, the Ministry and the Caucus or does the sensitive nature of the subject matter sometimes require those decisions not to be shared with the full Cabinet and certainly not with the Caucus? If so, does the Leader of the Government in the Senate not agree that the decision of the security committee of Cabinet, taken on 19 January, to offer limited assistance in support of the MX missile test was a decision binding on the Cabinet, not subject to review, and that it was a decision which the Prime Minister and the other committee members were entitled to take properly on behalf of the Government? Senator BUTTON —Yes, the Security Committee of the Cabinet does in certain circumstances adopt different procedures from those of other Cabinet committees; that is clearly so. The Government is of the view that all decisions are not necessarily appropriate to be dealt with by a full Cabinet or, as Senator Baume put it as a bonus in the course of his question, by the Caucus. Those decisions, in my view and I think in the view of the Government, should be very limited and few in number. But having said that, there are circumstances in which such decisions have to be taken. In regard to the decision so-called of 19 January taken by three Ministers, let me say first that it was not a decision of 19 January; it was a decision which was made at the time of the Fraser Government and which was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and reaffirmed by the Ministers on 19 January. I do not want to be involved in a quibble about that, but let us get the genesis of the whole matter in perspective. Senator Gareth Evans —Reaffirmed with a variation. Senator BUTTON —Yes, reaffirmed with a variation. In answer to the last part of Senator Baume's question, it is the prerogative of Cabinet or any part thereof to change its mind, and that happened. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics has recently reported its findings that the majority of murders are committed by men when attacking their wives. In view of this horrifying statistic, is it not totally unacceptable that the Film Censorship Board should have allowed the current screening of the film Body Doubles, which highlights a particularly offensive and brutal murder of a woman? How can Australians have any faith in a censorship board which apparently accepts a film by director Brian de Palma, who is reported to have said: 'I don't want to chop up women but it seems to work'? Will the Minister ensure that the Film Censorship Board reviews procedures for the screening of such degrading material? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not seen the film in question and am unable to comment on the degree of violence in it; nor have I seen the context in which Mr de Palma uttered the quote which Senator Reynolds put before us. I am not in a position to appreciate whatever it was he was trying to say. I am advised, however, that the film Body Doubles was classified 'R' for cinema exhibition by the Film Censorship Board. It was a unanimous decision by the three Board members reviewing it, who considered it as being a film in the Hitchcock tradition. The Motion Picture Association of America has also classified it as 'R'. That organisation, as no doubt Senator Reynolds will be aware, is not notorious for the open-mindedness or liberality with which it gives classifications of that kind. So I think it depends on what is in the film rather than descriptions of it of a lurid kind that we have all seen from various sources. The question of public exhibition of material depicting sexually violent acts has, however, been of concern, as I can personally testify, to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Senate Select Committee, or the Joint Select Committee as it will now be, on Video Material, which is currently examining the legislation affecting this issue as it relates to videos. No doubt when it reports the whole issue of classification of film will be considered not only by the Government but by Parliament and the Board itself. I will certainly draw Senator Reynolds's concerns to the attention of the Attorney-General for such further action or response as he might like to make. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence: Following the Prime Minister's recent reaffirmations of the Government's commitment to ANZUS and the United States alliance which the Minister has already referred to in Question Time today, can he now give the Senate an unequivocal assurance that ships of the United States Navy are and will be guaranteed access to all Australian ports, including the port of Melbourne, and to repair and docking facilities in the port of Sydney? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is and has been the Government's position that the question of port access is to be regarded as an inextricable part of an alliance relationship. Very many ground rules have evolved governing the circumstances in which such access can take place. I recall spelling them out in the context of Senate debates at the time of the HMS Invincible visit so far as nuclear power and weaponry were concerned, and those restrictions would apply. I am not aware of any intention by the Government to review its current policy in that respect and answer the honourable senator's question accordingly. Senator COATES —My question, which is to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, is about the management of South West Tasmania. Can the Minister understand the naturally amazed reaction of many people to the announcement that the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Gray, is to chair the ministerial council for the western Tasmania world heritage area, especially as Mr Gray was so intransigent in regard to the area's very existence and continues to have no commitment to the values which led this Government to act to protect the area? Will she explain to concerned people why it was necessary for the management arrangements to be made in this way? For instance, why is there not a statutory authority? Can the Minister assure me that the advice of experts in wilderness management will be effective in protecting the area and will not be continually subject to the effective veto of the present Tasmanian Government? Senator RYAN —I have some information available covering this topic. The model for the joint management arrangements for the Tasmanian world heritage area was the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and that model has proved very successful for more than five years. I gather that was the main reason for that model being used. Following that model a ministerial council has been established and Tasmania has followed Queensland's example by appointing the Premier as one of the State representatives on the council. I think the answer to that part of Senator Coates's question concerning the appointment of Mr Gray, the Tasmanian Premier, to the council is that the Government decided to follow the Great Barrier Reef model in every detail, including having the Premier a member of the council. Senator HAINES —Is the Minister for Community Services aware of a decision by officers in the Department of Social Security to classify residents of homes for the aged as home owners for the purposes of the assets test? Does the Minister agree with the Department's statement that at law 'all persons who pay, lend or donate money to secure accommodation in an aged person's home, by virtue of that payment, obtain a right to accommodation and accordingly become home owners in the same way as any other person with a life interest in a home'? If this definition stands, how can the Government justify defining as a home owner someone who has no title to any property, pays regular rental, does not receive any of the money back-as is the case with those who donate the money-has no appreciating asset and is in many ways in the same position as a person who pays bond money to a landlord? The PRESIDENT —Before the Minister answers, I point out to the honourable senator that she is not entitled to seek a legal opinion. But insofar as she is not seeking that opinion, I will ask the Minister for Community Services to answer the question. Senator GRIMES —I am about the only person in this place who would not be willing to give a legal opinion at some time or other. I am aware of the concerns raised by Senator Haines. They, of course, have been raised with me by others since the introduction of the assets test. As Senator Haines has said, I am informed that a legal opinion-certainly not my legal opinion-was given to the effect that when people pay for and receive as a result of that payment accommodation rights for life, under the legislation they have in most cases been deemed to be home owners and therefore qualify for only the lower asset holdings. I dare say that arguments have been and will be used that in many of the cases referred to such people own homes and other assets to which they will not return and there is a question about whether they should receive a pension. But quite clearly there are people who, as Senator Haines points out, have paid very small amounts of money in the past in order to enter nursing homes and on the surface of it there would seem to be an anomaly in treating them as home owners whereas those who have not made any payments are not treated as home owners. The Minister for Social Security, Mr Howe, is aware of this. He has a group monitoring this aspect of the assets test. We will, as I said many times before the assets test was introduced, look at problems of this type that may arise as a result of the defining of the legislation rather than its being inherent in the legislation itself. I will forward Senator Haines's further concerns to Mr Howe and get her a more detailed answer as soon as I can. Senator FOREMAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It concerns the building of the new Royal Australian Navy submarine fleet. Can the Minister indicate when Cabinet will announce which State has been selected as the site for the assembly of this fleet? Is the Minister aware that South Australia is a strong contender and considers that it has the best case for being selected as the construction site? Can the Minister also give an assurance that the fleet will be built in Australia and not overseas? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am well aware of the State chauvinism which has attended the consideration of this question. No doubt we will hear a good deal more of it in this place in the months ahead. The situation at present is this: As the Prime Minister said in the Australian Labor Party policy speech in December last, Australian industry will have the maximum practicable involvement in defence equipment programs, and this particularly includes the new submarines. Although a great deal of preliminary investigation has been done, no decision has been taken on the scope and content of an Australian industry program, nor on where the submarine should be constructed. It is not possible to make such a decision now, nor is it necessary to do so when one has regard to the fact that a contract for the construction of the new submarines is not planned until 1987. What is planned for decision shortly is the awarding of contracts for project definition studies which will define the details necessary for the full program of building and setting up facilities for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the submarines. Definitive information on Australian industry involvement will emerge during those project definition studies which are planned to commence later this year, which will then in turn allow a decision to be made on what is to be done in Australia, where and how. The Minister for Defence is to put proposals before Cabinet shortly on the project definition studies, but I cannot be more precise than that as to date. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, or alternatively to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I refer to the legislation passed by the last Parliament, the Representation Act 1983, providing for an increase in the size of both Houses of Parliament and in particular to the provision that enabled the additional members of the House of Representatives to serve from the date of election-1 December 1984-while the 12 additional senators did not take their seats and receive remuneration until the first sitting day of this Parliament. I ask: Firstly, is the Government aware that this discrimination between the two Houses is in direct conflict with the nexus provision, section 24 of the Constitution, which requires the number of representatives chosen to be as nearly as practicable twice the number of senators? Secondly, has the Government taken advice to ascertain whether, in the circumstances, the members of the House of Representatives elected on 1 December 1984 were properly and constitutionally elected and, if so, what advice has the Government received? Thirdly, if there is any doubt as to the validity of the election of members of this Parliament, has the Government considered the introduction of retrospective legislation to backdate the taking of office by new senators to 1 December 1984 in order to avoid a future constitutional challenge and to remove the 'inequitable and anomalous' differentiation, as the Chifley Government did in 1949? Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that the question involves the operation of the Representation Act, it is properly one directed to the Special Minister of State. To the extent, however, that it involves, as it clearly does, questions of constitutional validity and legal interpretation, it is properly directed, I suppose, to the Attorney-General. In both events, I will ensure that a quick response is obtained for the honourable senator. My recollection is that such advice was sought and, in fact, given within the Attorney-General's Department in the context of the preparation of the legislation, questions of that kind having been very much to the forefront of our consideration of how the legislation would operate in the transitional period. However, I will see what information can be made available to the honourable senator as soon as possible, given the obvious interest that not only he but also other senators and senators-elect have in the question he put. Senator MISSEN —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister also let us know whether the provision is different from the legislation of 1949? If so, why is it different in this way and unlikely to be challenged? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have taken that part of the honourable senator's question on notice also. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. No doubt the Minister is aware of the devastating storm damage which occurred in Brisbane on 18 January 1985 and the problems faced by people whose dwellings suffered major and minor damage during the storm. What steps were taken by the Defence Service Homes Corporation to facilitate the early payment of claims lodged under its insurance scheme? Senator GIETZELT —It is true, as Senator Jones said, that a very devastating storm struck Brisbane on 18 January. In terms of payments, the damage caused by this storm constituted the biggest disaster in the history of the Defence Service Homes Corporation insurance scheme. Information that I have been given shows that something like 80,000 homes were affected by that severe storm. The Corporation sent administrative and technical staff to Brisbane immediately following the storm. Our offices in Brisbane were open on Saturday and Sunday, the days immediately following the storm. In the ensuing weeks we processed some 4,000 claims with the total insurance cost to the Corporation being something in excess of $4m. That reinforces the statement I made that the storm was responsible for the biggest payout to be made by the Corporation since the insurance scheme was established many years ago. We sent technical staff to Brisbane so that assessments could be made by people working in the field and we could render immediate financial assistance and other technical help to people who were affected by that severe storm. I pay tribute to the radio stations, which were our best means of communication with those affected by the storm. As a result of their efforts the Corporation was able to give an immediate response to people during the weekend after the storm. I commend not only the radio stations but also the Corporation and its staff for the work that they carried out in the period immediately after the storm itself. Finally, I point out that the Corporation's insurance policy requires the Corporation to reinsure in the case of damage in excess of $1.5m. Therefore, as a result of the Corporation's insurance policies, the reinsurers will pay back most of the money to the Corporation. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Leader of the Government as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I note the Federal Government's support for the application by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 2.7 per cent national wage rise to cover the September and December quarters of 1984. I ask the Minister: What is the Government's attitude regarding the negative consumer price index figure of 0.2 per cent for the previous quarters? Further, I ask: Was the Government's decision to support the ACTU's claim taken in the light of the rapid growth in the money supply and the serious decline in the value of the Australian dollar? Senator BUTTON —I no longer represent the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in this place. I think that the Minister who does was confused perhaps by the question in that it was directed to me. The Government's decision, as I understand it, was taken on the basis that that decision was consistent with wage fixation principles. I will ask Senator Walsh, as the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, to supply an answer to the honourable senator's question on Monday. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The growing alarm amongst all pensioners, particularly those in rural areas, at the unfair and uneven impact of the assets test legislation. 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- Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of standing order 64 be suspended as would prevent each senator speaking on the Matter of Public Importance, speaking for not more than 20 minutes. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.03) —For almost two years now the Labor Government has been terrorising the aged in Australia. Upon their stooped shoulders has been heaped the added burden of the lump sum superannuation tax, the income test and the assets test-for their merely having the temerity to wish to live in some degree of independence and quiet dignity. It has been reliably reported that upwards of 150,000 persons will have lost their pensions by 21 March and, no doubt, countless more will be directly affected in the future by the capital gains tax which has been imposed on lump sum superannuation payments. Such has been the performance of the Labor Government since it came into power in March 1983. How does that square with its promise? How well do we remember during the 1983 election campaign when the present Government, then the Opposition, claimed that there would be no superannuation tax and no assets test. It stated that it would raise the pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and that there would be no income test for the over-70s. All that, of course, has been consigned to the dust-bin over the two years of the Hawke Labor Government. That dust-bin is probably the same one that will accept the home and community care program that seems to have disappeared from the Government's agenda, yet which was so loudly trumpeted by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech just before the recent election. The paucity of this Government's concern for the aged showed through the words written by it and read by the Governor-General yesterday. There was no mention of the home and community care program, said to be worth some $300m over three years, and certainly no mention of the previous promise to raise pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. There was a false reference to a tax saving that it was alleged the Government has made for pensioners over the period it has been in office, but that is absolutely wrong, as has been demonstrated in this place over the last year or so in the course of debate. In fact, a pensioner in this financial year will pay an extra $109 average tax over and above that of the previous year as a result of this Government's direct action and changes with the tax laws. I turn to the point of the matter of public importance today and the particular alarms which are abroad in the community and which have been manifesting themselves over the last several months. There are various matters I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate but let me start first of all with the question of those infamous forms that were sent out to the pensioner community in November. In explaining away the sending out of those forms and the impact they would have on the community the then Minister for Social Security, the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said before the election that pensioners were accustomed to filling out forms and that they also knew of the penalties that would apply if they made false declarations. He also said that the vast majority of pensioners-approximately 85 per cent-would not receive an assets test form. He said that the Government would ensure that only those pensioners who were close to the assets test limit would have to supply information, and that was estimated at 300,000. He stressed that there would be no intrusion into pensioners' personal affairs and that no officers of the Department of Social Security would enter pensioners' homes to check out the valuation of their assets. So in the first week of November out went the forms. Fifteen per cent of pensioners were sent a letter and an assets test form on the assumption that they would be near or at the limit. Eighty-five per cent were sent a letter, a guide and a form with a statement that it was not thought that they would be above the limit and they were told that if that were so they were not to return the completed form. The first anomoly becomes clear: All pensioners were sent the form despite the Minister's assurances that only the possibles would be sent the form. Confusion reigned immediately on not only the question of the complexity of the forms but also on the intrusive nature of the questions that were asked. Obviously the pensioners had a different or a lack of knowledge of the value of some of their assets-yet in fear of God and of the penalties that might be imposed upon them in the likelihood of their making a mistake, they were very diffident about sending the forms in. The fear of reprisal could quite easily have led to the fact that many pensioners did not send back their forms even though they may have been eligible for the pension and may now find themselves losing that pension. I instance the particular case of a lady who sent in the form and said that the value of her curtains in her house was $2 because she had bought them in 1946. She had no way of estimating the value, but an officer from the Social Security Department telephoned her to query her valuation and asked how the curtains could possibly be worth only $2. She then said 'Why don't you come and have a look at them?', which, of course, the officer did not do. Fortunately in the end the Department accepted that person's valuation of $2. That example raises the question of how stupid and futile is this attempt to deal with this situation in a way that the Minister and the Government have sought to do. The forms themselves are breathtaking in their complexity. The smallness of the print in the forms made it extremely difficult for those who were aged, infirm, frail, blind, partially blind or senile to make sense of them. We have seen these difficulties arise over the last few months. The questions which required detailed answers on the whole range of personal wealth and various assets and acquisitions were absolutely mind boggling to many people in advanced age. The forms were required to be returned within 21 days and a follow-up notice was sent if necessary. But if those forms, as I have said, have not been returned by 21 March those pensions will be lost. During all this time we have seen the Government openly criticised by the Premier of New South Wales and President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Neville Wran, for what he believed to be a silly and stupid system which had been introduced by this Government. We know of the swaps, the changes and the backstabbing of Ministers which has been going on over the last 12 months in this whole sorry episode of the assets test. The latest cry from the Premier of New South Wales to review the whole system was made only three or four weeks ago in the course of another New South Wales election campaign, which seems to be the time when all New South Wales politicians find their consciences pricked about the fortunes of pensioners. In the light of all this, the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as well have, to their credit, said that they will review anomalies as they come to light. I say to the Minister that this is his opportunity. There are plenty of anomalies in this legislation. Let me just instance a few. First of all, there are the questions about the value of various real estate items that are included in the assets test. How are they to be assessed? We still see that the Government is not prepared to accept rating notices and/or valuation notices from local authorities as the basis of the valuation of real estate. That will entail the attendance of other valuers, and we know that taxation valuers will be going around to look at properties from now on. There is the matter raised by Senator Haines today about nursing homes and the anomalous situations between-- Senator Haines —And aged homes. Senator MESSNER —And aged homes and aged cottage homes. She raised the anomalous situation of those people who have assets by virtue of the sale of their houses and who have gone into accommodation such as that. These people find themselves in variously difficult situations as a result of the assets test being applied to them. There is the comparison of that with the situation of the members of the family who choose to keep the old folks at home in a granny flat. Money spent by the family, by the retirees, on the establishment of a granny flat at the back of the son's or daughter's home cannot be excluded from the assets test because it is part and parcel of the piece of land that belongs to the son or daughter. Therefore, a further anomaly arises. Obviously the $10,000 limit set by the Government in respect of the personal effects items to be included in the declarations is far too low. People are finding just how ineffective that is. Of particular concern to the Government should be the position of widows and widowers who receive through inheritance the assets of their former spouse, which, of course, doubles the assets held in their own name. This means that they will be affected most significantly because they will be treated only as a single person and not as a married couple for the purposes of the assets test and thereby will lose their pensions. Perhaps one of the most serious anomalies that have arisen is the problems of farmers and those who live in rural communities. Traditionally, we all know, farmers are independent, conservative persons with no heavy or effective lobbying power. The land traditionally is passed from parents to family through heritage and also the willingness to put up with a great deal of hardship to build up an asset. That is, of course, not only a personal asset and an asset for the family but also an asset for the nation. It is that thought which I think escapes the Government too often. It is quite true that farming land values are all too often far in excess of the income productivity which is derived from them. The earning capacity is very low in comparison with other investments. It is true that aging parents do pass on properties, usually with tenancy rights during their retirement and until their death. Traditionally also farmers plough back into the property itself profits made on farms, building up that property over a period of years. Some of this land, for various reasons, environmental and otherwise, cannot be subdivided. The value of other assets which farmers usually own other than the real estate and the direct farming property and assets is, generally speaking, quite small. Apart from all those problems, farmers who legally sold or transferred their property to their families after 1 June 1984-when the assets test first applied-now, under the assets test legislation, will be considered to have deprived themselves in order to obtain a pension. As I pointed out, many farms cannot support two incomes for two families. Therefore many people, having transferred their property to a son or a daughter, do not own the property and are without any income from the farm. Of course, they do not receive a pension under the deprivation provisions of the legislation. Such persons can apply to the Government under the so-called pay as you die scheme-the pension loan scheme. If that pension is paid, the amount accumulates and interest at a rate of up to 13 1/2 per cent is added each year. Upon the death of that person the amount is claimed from the estate. In that situation-I hope the Minister will take into account this problem because it is highly significant-the accumulated pension would, of course, amount to a very considerable sum of money over, say, 15 years. It would amount to some $200,000 at least. That would be a very significant charge against the property. This situation applies to farmers who are lucky enough to obtain the benefit of the pension loan scheme. However, I invite honourable senators to consider the case of somebody who has transferred the property legally to his son or daughter, who is caught by the deprivation provisions of the legislation and who, because he does not legally own the property from the time of transferral, cannot give a mortgage or a charge to the Government and is thereby unable to obtain the benefit of the pension loans scheme. Therefore, he is out on his own entirely. Such a person has only one option, which is to go to the Government and apply under the hardship provisions. However, he is caught there. Under the guidelines which the Department applies to the hardship provisions, if a person has any more than $5,000 in assets-that could mean just a modest bank account-he cannot obtain a pension. It is a catch-22 situation. A farmer either is unable to obtain a benefit under the pensioner loan scheme or is forced to retain the property until his death. Perhaps that is the Government's intention so that when it introduces death duties following the tax summit later this year it will be able to tax the farmer and catch him that way. Also a person cannot obtain a benefit, even if he has only a modest amount of other assets, under the hardship provisions of the legislation until he has depleted those assets and made himself destitute. I think that is one of the most serious anomalies in the system, because it is designed to destroy the common practice of people owning their own properties, building them up as part of not only their family assets but also the nation's assets and encouraging production of very important primary produce for this country. The Opposition would like to take the Government at its word when it says that it is prepared to examine anomalies of that kind and to introduce legislation where necessary to correct those anomalies. Accordingly, today I urge the Government to take action as soon as possible to correct some of those crazy anomalies within the assets test legislation. However, as all members of the Opposition are realists, we recognise that many of the difficulties that have been generated as a result of this legislation go to its central core and are not capable of easy legislative amendment. I am afraid that this only reinforces the view of the Opposition that the assets test legislation is and was anomalous, heavy handed and wrong headed. It is likely to turn retirees into mendicants rather than encouraging them to build their assets through prudent savings so as to provide for their retirement. The Opposition is therefore drawn to the simple solution that the Government should repeal this iniquitous assets test legislation before it takes effect on 21 March-just one month from now. We offer all the co-operation that we can to assist in the passage of any legislation to cope with that. I hope that the Australian Democrats will join us and reverse their previous decision favouring the assets test legislation because, as I understand it, they are in favour of correcting anomalies. But if the Government persists obstinately in bringing Australian pensioners into the new Dark Ages, the undertaking by the Liberal and National parties to repeal the legislation before the election has even more significance today than it had previously. It is a crying shame, however, that the Government will make so many Australians suffer for its wrong headed obstinacy before we can deliver that undertaking in 1987 when we win the next election. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.22) —Senator Messner has proposed for debate today what he alleges is 'the growing alarm amongst all pensioners, particularly those in rural areas, at the unfair and uneven impact of the assets test legislation'. While not for one minute believing that the assets test legislation, any more than any other legislation which is passed by this Parliament, is anomaly free, I have to say that I find this statement by Senator Messner to be extraordinary. It is extraordinary for a number of reasons. The first reason is that any growing alarm among pensioners was very largely induced by the rather unconscionable behaviour of some members of the Opposition parties prior to and during the election campaign, when they did everything they could-presumably in the hope of gaining office as a consequence-to frighten the living daylights out of those people who were likely to be affected by the proposed assets test. They directed their attention predominantly towards elderly people, who are the most easily frightened. Senator Teague —Do you have some examples of that? Senator HAINES —Yes, I do have some examples. The sorts of things that were thrown at those people in radio programs, Press releases and so on were allegations, amongst others, that the gold in their teeth was likely to be taken into account for assets test purposes, and the 'knock, knock' situation that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, managed to get himself into every time he was on a platform. He regularly made a comment implying that there would be some sort of Hitlerian behaviour by Department of Social Security officers, who would ransack pensioners' homes looking for goodness only knows what under beds, in drawers and in cupboards. It is hardly any wonder, therefore, that certainly prior to Christmas there was growing alarm among pensioners about what the assets test was likely to bring. From the diminution in the number of letters that have come into my office since then, however, I would say that that alarm is declining. The second extraordinary statement Senator Messner made in this debate was his reference to the assets test being unfair and having an uneven impact on people. I cannot imagine a more unfair, inequitable and unevenly impacting system than the previous system under which pensioners and beneficiaries existed. I refer to a system in which only income was tested, and that system was introduced by the previous Liberal Government. I presume that Senator Messner and his colleagues, in bringing forward this criticism of an assets test, would like to see a return to the days in which income only is tested so that those people with the nous, with the access to smart lawyers, cunning accountants and so on, could arrange their affairs in such a way that their income was minimised. Such people could go on the pension and at the same time have enough capital to live on in relative luxury. A classic example is that pertaining to two workers, one of whom was entitled to take out lump sum superannuation and the other of whom was not. It was always possible for a person who could take a lump sum to hand it over to relatives to look after so that it apparently was not in that person's care, or to put it in a non-interest bearing account and still be able to draw on the capital. Those sorts of benefits did not accrue to someone who was not able to take a lump sum but had to take, as do so many people on small superannuation payments, a regular fortnightly or monthly cheque. Such people were means tested because they had income coming in regularly. That sort of anomaly is much greater than any of the anomalies which exist under the present system. It is not fair. It has an uneven impact. It is highly inequitable and most anomalous. I cannot believe that some of the simple minds of honourable senators who sit on the Liberal Party and National Party benches in this place could believe that it is fair, even, equitable or anomaly free. The facts are that a means test which includes certain assets-it does not include all assets because the principal place of residence, the family home, is specifically excluded-as well as including income is far more equitable and far more even in its impact than one which is based on income alone. I said a few moments ago that I did not believe that this current system was perfect or that it was totally anomaly free; no legislation ever really is. But most of the problems that have been raised, including those affecting people in rural areas, seem to stem not from the principles of the Act, nor even necessarily from sections in the Act, but from discretionary guidelines emanating from sections of the Act, and there is a difference. Those discretionary guidelines are being determined by the Department of Social Security. Senator Messner mentioned a matter which I raised during Question Time today relating to residents of aged persons homes. In this case the Department, rather than the Act, has decided: At law whose law I am not quite sure and which law I am not quite sure-- . . . all persons who pay, lend or donate money to secure accommodation in an aged persons' home, by virtue of that payment, obtain a right to accommodation and accordingly become homeowners in the same way as any other person with a life interest in a home. That definition was included in a letter from the Department of Social Security to a constituent and, I think, was signed by the Acting Assistant Secretary, Benefits, Administration and Entitlements. That definition is not enshrined in the Act. It is up to the Department's discretion to make decisions. I feel this is a foolish one. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), in answering my question, acknowledged that it was an anomaly. It makes no differentiation between people who pay $35,000 or $40,000 on loan to get accommodation in an aged home, and have that money then returned at a later date, and the people who pay a small $8,000 to $10,000 donation and lose it entirely. It pays no attention to the fact that these people have no title to any property. They pay rent and many are, in effect, in a similar situation to those who pay bond money to landlords. I hope that the Minister will do what he indicated in Question Time and pursue this matter in line with the Prime Minister's assurance that the Government will keep an eye on any anomalies that arise. This anomaly has already arisen and ought to be attended to, preferably before 1 March. Problems affecting people in rural communities seem also to stem, although perhaps not entirely, from the manner in which the Department of Social Security officers are valuing land under the hardship provisions. If my correspondence is any guide, the largely unsympathetic method that is used by the Department affects farmers quite severely when they are hit by a bad year and suffer low yields. It also affects people who live on properties in areas where State or local government regulations prevent sale of part of the property. There seems to be a fairly inflexible system applied by the Department, again, one which is not laid down in the Act but which is emanating from the discretionary provisions in some sections. So the anomalies and inequities which Senator Messner implies are in the Act have a tendency not to be an integral part of the system but to be administrative problems and, therefore, one would hope, solvable by administrative means. Senator Messner —Wrong. Senator HAINES —It may well be that I am wrong. At the moment the problems raised with me seem to stem from administrative decisions made by the Department and are therefore solvable at that point. Senator Messner is the Opposition spokesperson on community services. Since I presume the Liberal Party chooses its spokespeople for their acumen, intelligence and knowledge of the subject, surely he could have come to the Senate today with a matter of public importance focusing on the real plight of a large number of people-mainly women and children in the social welfare sector, people caught by anomalies, inequities and unequal distributions of money, people who are caught in poverty traps under this Government as they were under the previous Liberal Government. Their plight is an ongoing matter of public importance, or it ought to be, and not something that is manufactured by the scaremongering tactics of certain politicians for some ephemeral political gain. I would have thought that it would have been more useful if today the Senate had discussed the fact that the Hawke Labor Government has an abysmal record in its actions towards the welfare sector. In its first two years in office the Hawke Labor Government has paid less attention to the welfare sector than have most previous Liberal Governments-and I say that with all due respect to the current Minister and indeed to the immediately preceding Liberal Minister. Both those senators did what they could, I believe, to mitigate an increasingly awful welfare problem. Unfortunately, they ran into the brick walls of their respective Prime Ministers and certain Cabinet members. As a consequence, we still have three-quarters of a million children living below the poverty line; we still have an increasing number of homeless young people. We still have a situation where legislation aimed at helping low income families-for example first home owners-does not help sole supporting parents and their families because they do not reach the minimum income level. The unemployed and others on pensions still have no incentive to earn extra money or to seek limited part time work to help them survive because of the income levels placed on them before their pensions are affected. Job creation schemes are still short term solutions to a growing problem of youth unemployment and the mature aged unemployed are barely catered for. I submit that all these are greater and more serious examples of an unfair and inequitable social welfare system than anything contained in the assets test legislation. Finally, I refer to one or two comments made by Senator Messner with regard to capital gains taxes, death duties and lump sum superannuation. I remind him, if he needs reminding, and the Senate that in fact that capital gains tax on lump sum superannuation that he criticised at the beginning of his speech passed this place in the form in which it passed this place because every Liberal and National Party senator voted with the Government on it. Senator Teague —We opposed the legislation. Senator HAINES —They opposed a Democrats amendment which would have exempted large numbers of lump sum superannuation recipients on the grounds that it was trivial. Senator Messner —Would you have voted against the legislation? Senator HAINES —Yes, we would have, had we had the opportunity. In the same way it was Liberal and National Party senators who voted in favour of a sales tax on wine. They supported every increase in primary industry levies, with the possibly exception of Senator Boswell, who chose to abstain on one levy Bill vote. If they proceed in that manner in the next three years it will be useless their complaining about the Government introducing death duties which, I point out to Senator Messner so that he can take it back to his shadow Cabinet, we are opposing. Just so that Senator Messner gets it right, we are opposed to death duties. If they maintain in this place the voting habits they have had in the last two years, they will vote with the Labor Government to pass them. So they should not complain about anything that the Labor Party has done as far as tax legislation is concerned when they were at least silent partners. No, that is not true; they were mostly noisy partners but when it came to the crunch they supported it. Senator Messner said something about anomalies being removed from the assets test legislation. I hope that he will talk his colleagues into supporting our anomalies Bill, which is aimed at helping people who are unfairly, unintentionally and inequitably hit by some administrative decisions emanating from discretionary clauses. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.39) —We are debating a matter of public importance brought forward to the Senate by Senator Messner under standing order 64, namely: The growing alarm amongst all pensioners, particularly those in rural areas, at the unfair and uneven impact of the assets test legislation. I take up a point raised by Senator Haines: When we were sitting around this morning speculating on what matters the Opposition might bring up in this first effective day of the Parliament we looked at the things that the Opposition has been making a lot of noise about in recent weeks. We looked at all sorts of controversies which have been in the editorials and the newspapers in recent weeks. We looked at all these sorts of things. I did not think, and I do not think anyone on this side of the House or even many people on the other side of the House this morning would have dreamed, that we were going to have a rerun of 1984 with Senator Messner getting up another version of his effort on the assets test. I suppose that is the reason that not only when I speak but also when the two previous speakers have spoken there has been only a handful of people in this place and, quite frankly, I do not blame those not here. They have heard it all before. They knew what Senator Messner was going to say. Senator Haines and I try to vary it a bit each time, but we know what Senator Messner will say. They all go away and do something sensible. Quite frankly, I do not blame them, and I do not blame members of the Press for ignoring Senator Messner's remarks, as they probably will. I suppose the best way one could start off in describing this extraordinary matter of public importance is by quoting the Press. Claude Forell, in an article in the Age last year, said: The hysterical froth and fear and loathing whipped up against the Federal Government's assets test on pensions has been wondrous to behold. The campaign has been waged not so much by those with genuine concern for the poor and needy but politicians eager to garner votes. Senator Haines is right: If we are to have a debate on poverty and inequity in this society, as we should do regularly in this place, the assets test is about the last thing we should bring up to discuss. Even I on the Government side, with my necessity to defend Government actions and everything else, can bring up many more inequities and many more examples of poverty and injustice in this society than the assets test. I think Senator Messner demonstrated in his first few words what sort of a debate this was going to be. I ask him to look at Hansard. He said: The Government is frightening pensioners with the iniquitous income and assets test. We have had an income test under previous conservative governments since 1976 and before 1976 we had an income test and an assets test. There is nothing to connect this Government with an income test. The previous Liberal Minister for Social Security-the leader of the Liberal Party in this place-quite happily administered an assets test and never made any attempt to get rid of it. He did not think it was iniquitous. The previous Liberal Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, made speeches in this place-I might quote one later-in which he talked about a need for the introduction of the assets test. The former Treasurer, Mr John Howard, said that the removal of the assets test was the dumbest thing that the previous Government ever did. Then Senator Messner demonstrated what it is all about. He said that reliable sources tell us that 150,000 people will be affected by the assets test. The only reliable source for that is Senator Messner's fevered imagination. Nowhere near 150,000 people will be affected by the assets test. He knows it. He dreamt that figure up. He has no information. He gave us no evidence for that figure because there is no evidence for it; it is part of the scare program. Then he said that the Government has done other things to the aged-for example, that it was going to introduce a HACC program, a home and community care program, but that, in his words, 'it has disappeared from the face of the earth'. Senator Messner —They weren't the words at all. Senator GRIMES —They were the words he used. I do not know whether Senator Messner was in Adelaide last Friday-Senator Teague probably was-but within a block of Senator Messner's office there was a full day meeting of the State Government, the Federal Government and non-government organisations in Adelaide on something called the HACC program. Last Saturday there was such a meeting in Hobart and next Saturday there will be one in Sydney. Even while the election campaign was going on officials were negotiating the HACC program. I am having endless correspondence with State Ministers over the HACC program. Senator Messner's Liberal Party colleague in Tasmania keeps whingeing that we do not talk to him enough about the HACC program and the next week he says we are having too many discussions on the program. I can assure honourable senators that discussions are proceeding actively and vigorously on the HACC program. The fact that Senator Messner is not in on them all does not mean that the program has disappeared from the face of the earth. Senator Messner then told us that the assets test form was sent to every pensioner. I suppose, Mr Deputy President, that it is within Parliamentary language for me to say that that is completely untrue. It was sent to 15 per cent of the pensioners. Senator Messner knows it and everybody else in this place knows it. To suggest that every pensioner received the statement of assets form is to state a deliberate untruth. He said the form was of breathtaking complexity. He said also that unfortunately the blind could not read it, and I will accept that. He said it was of breathtaking complexity and that people could not understand it. Jim Priest, the Secretary of the Australian Pensioners Federation, said that he did not like any forms but as forms go this was about the best form that he had ever seen. He did not think it was complex at all and he congratulated the Government on it. Senator Messner may have difficulty with a form like that although, in view of his former occupation, I do not think he would have too much trouble fiddling around with a form of that type if he thought he could. But, in fact, 92 per cent of pensioners who received the forms filled them out and sent them back. They had no problems at all. Many of them received assistance from the hot line. Others received assistance from the Department of Social Security. I honestly must say that the whole thing has gone off very well. If Senator Messner is having hallucinations that vast numbers of people are having great difficulties with the assets test and are marching up and down the streets, I am afraid he does not seem to be living not only in the same country but in the same universe as us. As I said, we decided that the time had come to overcome the anomalies that were pointed out by Senator Haines in her address here this afternoon, that a system is patently unfair if one has a means test which does not include assets. A system is plainly unfair which allows wealthy people-I can give the Senate examples of people with $550,000 in income free deposits and $400,000 worth of shares-who are still getting the full pension and all of the fringe benefits to manipulate their affairs whereas someone on a small fixed income or a small weekly superannuation payment which is subject to an incomes test has his pension affected and reduced and sometimes his fringe benefits removed. If that is Senator Messner's idea of equity, I do not share it. The only way to overcome the problem that Senator Messner talks about would be to abolish the means test altogether. I notice that this Government is not advocating that and I do not think that many people in this place do. Those sorts of inequities have been recognised for a long time. Senator Chaney decided to do something about it some years ago when he was the responsible Minister in the Fraser Government. He tried to restore some sorts of assets testing when he said that the then Government was looking at doing something about non-income bearing cash holdings. The then Government withdrew from that because such a proposal was inequitable in that it would have affected pensioners who had cheque accounts of about only $3,000 and left alone people with large land holdings worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was inequitable. The then Government put its toe in the water and pulled it back again. But even after that, Senator Chaney talked about his worries in that area. He said in May 1982: I think we cannot escape from the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in this country who do not receive enough help, while some other people, by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on the system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. That is a very proper and decent statement but one needs the political will to translate that statement into action and this Government in fact had that political will. We did not do what, I suppose, Senator Messner and his colleagues would do if they had had that political will in the first place. We did not say: 'There is going to be an election in December so we will not send the forms out in November; will will wait until after the election'. We recognised that there would be some difficulties. However, we were convinced that the system was as fair as we could make it. We were convinced that the systems of sending out the forms and of assessment were as reasonable as we could make them. Even though it was a month before the election, we sent out the forms and we proceeded. That is the action of a government that has the courage of its convictions; that is the action of a government that believes in what it is doing and believes that most people in the community agree with what it is doing. That is what we did. If there has been any fear, if there has been any great misunderstanding in the community, if there has been a growing alarm in the community, it has been amongst only those people whom Senator Messner and his colleagues have managed to get at with their fear tactics. Senator Haines mentioned the extraordinary case of Mr Hodgman, the notorious member for Denison, who suggested that we were in fact going to assess the gold fillings in people's teeth. I was interested to note from a transcript of a talk-back program in Hobart that Senator Messner did not deny Mr Hodgman's statement. He said that it was fair enough for Mr Hodgman to make that sort of statement because there was no specific exclusion of gold from teeth in the assets test legislation. Senator Robertson —Anything to frighten the pensioners. Senator GRIMES —Anything to scare the pensioners. There were many other examples of this by various candidates in the community. There was one in South Australia, whose name I cannot remember, who sent out a form saying that we were sending the storm-troopers in through the doors. Mr Peacock talked about sending storm-troopers in to pensioners' homes and everything else. What happened was that there was a great overkill by the Opposition. When the pensioners' assets form came out, when people realised how they were or were not affected and when they realised that the Government had done the best job it could in bringing in the assets test, they started to look askance at the sort of nonsense that was being put out by the Opposition and they did not take much notice of it. They are taking less notice of it as the days go by. Senator Messner said today that he had been informed by reliable sources that 150,000 pensioners will be affected by the assets test. Senator Messner —And the income test. Senator GRIMES —For heaven's sake! If Senator Messner looks at the speech he made and at the topic which he brought up for discussion this afternoon he will see what he said. He knows what he meant to say. What he said was that 150,000 people would be affected. When we introduced this test-I have said this repeatedly in this Parliament-we had difficulty in quantifying exactly how many people would be affected. We had figures on pensioners who claimed they had nothing. We knew the number of pensioners who were affected by their income earning assets, and we had some information about the interest in bank accounts. We did not really know about the total asset holdings of pensioners in this country. We predicted that about 2 per cent of the pensioner population, about 40,000 pensioners, would be affected by the assets test, but we accepted that we could be wrong. I cannot, on behalf of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), give final figures on the outcome, although we will be able to do so in a couple of weeks time. It is a little early to do so because, as Senator Messner has said, it will be another month before the test comes in. On the present figures, with a 92 per cent return of statement of assets forms, it appears that instead of 2 per cent of pensioners being affected the figure might be 2.1 or 2.2 per cent. I find it incredible that in an area in which we are operating only on what might be called intelligent extrapolation we can get that close to the number of people affected. The figure is not 150,000. It is certainly not the 350,000 which the Melbourne Herald claimed will be affected. It is around the 40,000 mark, about which we talked when we introduced the test. I believe that makes the test and the introduction of the test a success. The Opposition was scornful when we said in this place that it would be demonstrated that not only was the Government on the right track in its figures but also it was on the right track in believing that the pensioners of this country would accept the assets test and play the game. It is a credit to the pensioners of Australia that as at a week ago, 92 per cent of them had already assessed their circumstances honestly and fairly. They have returned the information that was needed to continue their pension unchanged, to reduce it or, in some cases, to lose it. I think it is a tribute to the pensioners of this country that they acted with common sense. They were not stampeded. It is a tribute to their sense of responsibility that they responded in a straightforward way and with promptness, despite the fear tactics used by the Opposition. I urge the pensioners who have not returned their forms to complete them and get them to their nearest Social Security office in the next couple of weeks so there can be no mistake about their entitlements I believe they know that spoilt forms can be replaced. They know they can get advice from the Department and the Department's hotlines. I believe, and I think most fair-minded people in this community believe, that the assets test is as fair as any test could be and that it is proving, and will continue to prove, to be cost effective. We certainly expect that the savings will be in excess of the $50m that we had envisaged, for the reason that some pensioners are far better off than we ever expected. I have mentioned cases of people having extraordinary amounts of money in building society accounts and bank accounts and assets of extraordinarily high value and still getting the full pension and full fringe benefits. The poor families and low income families paying taxes should not be in the position of having their taxes used to pay pensions to people such as those. Apparently my colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, has estimates of incomes received from the assets test which are a bit larger than we expected, for similar reasons. Of course, there are areas of difficulty. I put it to honourable senators that those were the areas we knew were there all along and talked about repeatedly in this place. The apparent anomaly that Senator Haines brought out I have raised in the past, and will raise again, with the Minister for Social Security who, as I said, has a team monitoring this situation. Of course we are willing, as we always were, to correct anomalies of that type. The contentious area-mainly farms-relates to the situation of a property with a high valuation, producing little income and unable to be sold at a reasonable price. That was the reason we put into the legislation the hardship provisions which apply, and which may not be known to many property owners. We have had leaflets prepared. Every member of parliament has the details of the hardship provisions. I think most accountants in this country now have those details. Of course we will continue to monitor that situation. It is not easy-it never was easy-in an assets test situation to cater for the farming community, but to exclude it completely would have meant a horde of people with smart money from the cities ripping out into the country and not only taking advantage of our pension system but also distorting the values and the economies in the farming community, and that we did not want. The assets test has been introduced smoothly and with little fuss. It has been well accepted in the community, except by those in the Opposition. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.58) —The assets test will continue to be debated in this chamber until it is repealed. Although the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said that this debate is a rerun of that held in 1984, it is a rerun only in terms of his use of optimistic velvet words, that he hopes might come true, about his smooth implementation of the assets test and other such phrases that he has used today, as he did last year, and I believe with offence to reality in the country. What is new in this debate, and why this matter has been raised today, is that the forms have now gone out to and been received by pensioners, and there is growing alarm. We have had an election and that election has seen a setback for the Government. Now there is a further reversal for the Government in the present polls. The Bulletin Morgan gallup poll reminds us that if there had been an election on 9 or 10 February the Liberals would now be in government. The people have lost confidence in this Government, not only because of the MX missile tests debate and reversals within the Government, but also because of the crunch of the assets test as it is being implemented by this Government. I warn the Minister again that this is an issue in which the Australian people are affected-not just the two or three per cent that he tries to pooh pooh as being an insignificant number of the aged population of Australia. What about their adult children, their relatives and those who care for them? It is a growing political problem for this Government, and it is a factor which is leading to the Government's disfavour in the polls and to that degree of increased support for the Liberal and National parties in the last election. What is new in this debate is that the forms have been distributed; there is growing alarm. We have had an election and we have seen the Government's stocks drop at the polls. More importantly-this is the point that the shadow Minister made-the legislation has yet to be proclaimed. It is only one month from the date-21 March-when this legislation will be in operation if the Government has its way. Therefore, I make the plea to the Minister, as he rises to leave the chamber, that there is yet time for him to convince the Government not to put this legislation into operation but to see it repealed. I note the Australian Democrats' contribution to this debate and I certainly support the removal of the anomalies referred to by them with regard to aged cottage homes and also with regard to the anomaly raised by my colleague about rural properties. Apart from that sound aspect of Senator Haines's contribution, her speech was a round defence of the principles of the assets test. She spoke clearly in favour of the principle of there being an assets test. I put it to her that that is one of the principal reasons why the Australian public has woken up to the fact that the Democrats do not care about the principle of this legislation and that is why our telephones in the Liberal Party have been running hot with complaints, protests and calls for overcoming these anomalies. The public has turned away from the Australian Democrats knowing that they, in all their commitments, have supported the principle of the legislation. I can only say that the Opposition will continue to move in the period up to 21 March for this legislation not to be put into effect and we will continue to be committed to repealing it as soon as this Government is replaced by a Liberal government. I make a plea to the Minister: This is not a rerun of 1984. What is new and significant in what we have urged today we will look at him to achieve in overcoming the anomalies. We urge him not to implement his own legislation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under the Sessional Orders for debating a matter of public importance has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator MESSNER —In the course of his remarks the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) misrepresented on several occasions statements I made during my speech on this matter of public importance. He referred to remarks that he claimed I made in relation to a total of 150,000 people being affected by the assets test. That totally misrepresented my statements. What I said was that up to 150,000 people are affected by the income test on over 70s, the assets test which the Government has legislated for, and the superannuation tax. Senator Grimes —Read it in Hansard. Senator MESSNER —I will, and I trust that the Minister will as well. I seek to make my explanation in order to make that absolutely clear. Of course, the Minister is as slippery as an eel in matters such as this and consequently will misrepresent my position on many occasions, as he already has. I seek to set the record clear, if I can do nothing else to shut him up. I mentioned all those areas in which this Government has taken action over the last two years. At least 55,000 people have already lost their pensions as a result of the income test applying to the over 70s. On the Government's own admission, more than 45,000 people will be affected by the assets test and certainly a greater number will be affected by the superannuation tax. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1984 Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984 States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984 States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1984 Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1984 International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1984 Housing Assistance Bill 1984 Biological Control Bill 1984 Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee Amendment Bill 1984 Wheat Marketing Bill 1984 Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1984 Wheat Tax (Permit) Bill 1984 Wheat Tax (Permit) Collection Bill 1984 Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1984 Wheat Tax Amendment Bill 1984 Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Amendment Bill 1984 Canned Fruits Marketing Amendment Bill 1984 Canned Fruits Levy Amendment Bill 1984 Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984 Fisheries Licences Levy Bill 1984 Fishing Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Meat Export Charge Bill 1984 Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1984 Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984 Dairy Products (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Amendment Bill 1984 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Amendment Bill 1984 Eggs (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Amendment Bill 1984 Egg Export Legislation Repeal Bill 1984 Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Validation Bill 1984 States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1984 Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1984 Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1984 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Bill 1984 Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984 Passports Amendment Bill 1984 Registration of Deaths Abroad Bill 1984 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1984-85 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to make some comments in relation to the Canberra Development Board because there have been suggestions recently that finance for it may be one of the things cut in the next Budget. Members of the Government representing Canberra have suggested that this is a premature comment, that it is nonsense and that it is not likely to be. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has not denied that it is so. It is common knowledge in Canberra at the moment that the Department of Finance is sending out notes everywhere seeking to cut back. The Minister himself, speaking in the House of Assembly last Monday week, made it very plain indeed that there would not be much money around in the next Budget. The Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission, speaking on radio last week, also indicated that the Commission expected its budget to be cut significantly this year. The reason I suggest that we are entitled to be concerned about the fate of the Canberra Development Board is that last year its funding was not increased. The very area in which it is necessary to give attention to development in Canberra, that is, the expansion of the private sector and the security of jobs for young people that the Board can establish, was not looked after in the Budget last year. It is reasonable for people in Canberra to feel concerned that the Board may be subject to cuts this year. The matter was addressed by the Chairman of the Canberra Association for Regional Development last Tuesday at the opening of the new offices for the Canberra Development Board. He expressed the views of that organisation that it is important to Canberra that the Board continue. Every State has its organisation for developing private sector businesses and factories and the Board has done that in Canberra. The record of the Canberra Development Board in establishing jobs is extremely good. It has been able to create jobs, spending at the rate of $6,700 for each job but, as I said, it has had too little to spend. The amount it is spending does not go, of course, on wages but on establishing capital and infrastructure which causes a job to come into existence. The jobs are likely to be permanent and available for young people into the future, and are likely then to cause other jobs to be created. I contrast the record of the Canberra Development Board, as I have done previously, with the record of the community employment program. Jobs under that program were costing $11,500. It is now said, of course, that they cost only $10,655 in the Australian Capital Territory but the length of time of the job has dropped from 45 to 36 weeks. One could wonder whether some scrambling of figures is going on in view of the fact that the Government promised 65,000 jobs in 1984-85. Perhaps by providing them for a shorter time it is costing less to do so. It is important for our community that the Canberra Development Board continues. It is important that the Minister and the Government understand the need to diversify the Australian Capital Territory economy so that Canberra is not just a Public Service town. If cuts are to occur-the Government seems to be making it pretty plain that there will be-they should not be in the area of development of tourism and of the private sector. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.10) —I speak to the motion to take note of the report of the Canberra Development Board and to support my colleague Senator Reid. It has been estimated that in Canberra the proportion of Public Service jobs to private jobs is about 60:40. To increase the size of the private sector in this town to equality would need a 50 per cent increase in the private enterprise aspects of Canberra. That is not easy for private enterprise. Private enterprise has to overcome many difficulties including government assistance and priorities given to semi-government authorities. In August 1979 the Fraser Government established this Board to promote private enterprise development in the Australian Capital Territory. It certainly has been a very successful Board. It is not expensive. Its total appropriation and expenditure for 1983-84 was $364,178. That is quite a modest sum when compared with the sorts of boards carrying out similar tasks in the States. There is a clear indication that the Government is not prepared to give this Board the support to which it is entitled. I make that statement on the basis that, for example, there have been changes with regard to retirements of executive officers. Instead of appointing full time permanent officers the Government has allowed people from within the executive to be appointed or promoted to positions on an acting basis. It should have appointed them properly to their full time positions. Now it has become very clear from statements by the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, that the Australian Capital Territory is in for a very hard time in regard to the current Budget. No doubt other aspects of the economy are in for a very hard time in regard to the current Budget if this Government is to carry out the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Nevertheless, the Government is starting to look around at areas in which it might cut expenses. It seems that the private enterprise areas of the town will suffer under the sorts of socialist principles that this Government has continued to adopt. I must say that I am hopeful that the appointment of Mr Scholes will mean that the socialist principles Mr Uren was adopting when he was the Minister for Territories and Local Government will quietly fade into the background and that under Mr Scholes there will be a realisation of the need to develop private enterprise in the Australian Capital Territory. It cannot be said that there are any problems about appointments to the Board. I understand that Sir Laurence Muir, who was appointed Chairman of the Board under the Fraser Government, has indicated that he is quite willing to retire at 30 June or whenever his period expires. So the Government clearly has an opportunity to appoint its own chairman to the Board. I very strongly urge the Minister and the Government, rather than cutting back funds for this Board, to give earnest consideration to giving it the funds it needs to carry on with the sorts of jobs it has been doing. If one looks at the highlights one sees that this Board has been associated with establishing about eight or 10 major industries in Canberra. They include such high tech things, which Mr Barry Jones is frequently talking about, as Wang computers and Plessey Pacific defence systems. Senator Grimes —You are not saying that the Board brought them here? Senator LEWIS —At the 'Made in Canberra' exhibition currently on display at the Board's premises in Canberra one would be absolutely staggered to see the nature of products produced in Canberra which are highly worth while. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government not to do away with the Canberra Development Board but, in fact, on the contrary to give it greater opportunities. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that, consequent upon the retirement of Mr James William Roberts, Mr John Martin Campbell was appointed Principal Parliamentary Reporter as from 2 January 1985 and Mr Robert Thomas Martin has been appointed Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 4.15 p.m., under sessional order I now put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(4.15) —Mr President, many honourable senators will be aware of my opposition to the use of corporal punishment on school children. Most of my comments on this issue are not made in this chamber, but I feel compelled to report to the Senate on a matter relating to corporal punishment. In Queensland schools, the archaic practice of beating children is still officially condoned. The Queensland Government's regulations about the use of corporal punishment read as follows, and I quote from the Queensland Education Regulations: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT A principal or, if authorised by a principal, a deputy principal of a State school may administer corporal punishment to boys who are pupils of such school for any of the following reasons:- (a) offences against morality; (b) insolence; (c) wilful and persistent disobedience; and (d) gross misconduct at school or when travelling to and from school that is in the opinion of the principal likely to prejudice the good order and discipline of the school: Provided that corporal punishment shall not be administered: (i) to a pupil enrolled in Grade 1 or 2; (ii) for trivial breaches of school discipline or for failure or inability to learn; or (iii) in a form which is irregular, degrading, injurious and unnecessarily severe. (2) If corporal punishment is inflicted under the provisions of sub-regulation (1) the full particulars shall be recorded at the time in the Punishment Register. Against that background, I should like to read to the Senate a Courier-Mail article which was published on 18 February 1985. It was headed ' ''No right'' to cane without consent'. It reads as follows: A school caning without a parent's knowledge or consent violated the parent's civil rights, Mrs Sharon Olsson said yesterday. She said her son, 14, was caned last week, allegedly for eating a lolly in class at Cavendish Road High at Holland Park in Brisbane. Mrs Olsson, of Morningside, said the punishment system which allowed her son, John to be caned without her consent was Dickensian and an infringement of her own and her son's civil liberties. She had complained to the school and to the Education Department about her rights concerning corporal punishment and had been told by officials: ''You have no rights, madam''. She also had tried to secure ''some kind of accountability'' from the school principal for two days but had been told he was unavailable. ''I wanted to know what sort of gross insubordination warranted a caning and, if John was guilty of that, why I wasn't called to talk about my son's behaviour before or after the punishment,'' Mrs Olsson said. ''The Education Department and myself seem to be at cross purposes in the socialising of my son. ''In our society, people are charged with assault for hitting another person and we don't even whip our criminals any more. I've tried to bring John up to believe that aggression is not a way of dealing with a problem. ''Hitting a child like this is a contradiction of all our other laws''. Mrs Olsson said school officials had told her she could put her opposition to corporal punishment on paper but they were not obliged to comply with a request not to cane her child. ''You so often hear about parents being unconcerned, and using schools as babysitters, but I've been left out of any involvement in this,'' she said. John Olsson said he was amazed at the punishment. He said he had one stroke of the cane, which left a bruise. He said he did not believe in corporal punishment. ''It isn't right and it isn't effective,'' he said. ''I told Mum I would rather have the cane than a detention. It's over quicker.'' Queensland Civil Liberties Council vice-president, Mr Terry O'Gorman, said Mrs Olsson's rights had been infringed. 'The regulations date back to the 1800s and are not realistic,' he said. The Director of Secondary Education in Queensland, Mr Jack Guy, yesterday said a parent relinquished responsibility for a child as soon as a child walked through the school gate. 'The principal takes over and should deal with a student as he would deal with his own child,' he said. Corporal punishment was administered only in circumstances of wilful and persistent disobedience, Mr Guy said. Its extent should be realistic and 'not sadistic'. The school principal was not available for comment yesterday. I should mention that I have been in touch with Mrs Olsson to make sure that neither she nor her son would be embarrassed if I raised this matter in the Senate. She said she would be pleased if I did so. I agree with comments made by Mrs Olsson. I am appalled at the comments attributed to some education officials. If the canning occurred because of the alleged offence, it was clearly not covered by the regulations which I stated earlier. I want to stress the authoritarian attitude of departmental officials. Fancy officials informing Mrs Olsson that she had no rights! Fancy the Director of Secondary Education in Queensland saying, as reported in the Courier-Mail, that a parent relinquished responsibility for a child as soon as the child walked through the school gate! That is absolutely absurd. Parents should be encouraged to be part of the education process. They should not be told that they have no rights. I doubt that the Federal Government can give Mrs Olsson any assistance in relation to the severe infringement on her rights as a parent. However, I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to have the matter investigated to see whether any Federal statutes have been breached in this case. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.23) —Briefly I want to refer to a comment made a few minutes ago when Senator Lewis spoke about the Canberra Development Board. He referred to one company by name-the Wang Computer company-as having been brought to Canberra by the Canberra Development Board. I did not precisely hear what Senator Grimes said at the time but the fact is that a number of the companies brought to Canberra by the Canberra Development Board have received no subsidy or financial enticement to do so but have come here as a result of discussions with the Board. Other companies have received subsidies and benefits of some kind to attract them to the Canberra area. The matter perhaps needs to be pursued further but it is my understanding that the Wang Computer company, having entered into discussions with the Board, initially on the basis of becoming part of the incentive scheme, in fact came to Canberra without any financial assistance whatever and is expanding its operations here. There are other companies in a similar position but I think it important that there be no confusion as to who has received subsidies and who has not, especially if the matter is to go before Cabinet, because I would not want any Minister in the Cabinet to have any pre-conceived prejudices. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.24) —I have no knowledge of the matter raised by Senator Colston. I will refer the matter to my colleague, Senator Ryan, for a response. My comment about Senator Austin Lewis's remark about the Wang Computer company moving to Canberra and its being something to do with the Canberra Development Board arose out of the fact that I have some knowledge of why the Wang company came here. In fact, if Senator Lewis goes to the company's building he will see a big plaque on the wall which says that I opened the building. Wang in fact came here as part of the offset provisions of the considerable contract it received to equip the Department of Social Security with a new data processing system. I have had close contacts with the Wang company. I have had great respect for the Wang company. I continue to do so. However, I was interested to note the example that Senator Lewis used. I assure Senator Reid that that does not mean that I do not appreciate the efforts of the Canberra Development Board or the need for a Canberra Development Board. I am not prejudiced in any way. She knows very well that I am certainly not prejudiced against anything in Canberra. We have all made speeches at some time in the past about moneys that have been expended in Canberra; I think even Senator Lewis has made such contributions. They may all come back to haunt us at some time but I would not delve into the past to see what sort of things had been said. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.25 p.m.