Monday, 27 May 1985 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilisation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 468 citizens), Lewis (from 954 citizens), Mason (from 273 citizens), Puplick (from 120 citizens), Richardson (from 264 citizens), Short (from 1,025 citizens), Sibraa (from 399 citizens), Tate (from 117 citizens) and Zakharov (from 1,033 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 have great concern for further development and research of the IVF program and express that we are against (Senator Harradine's) Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. The Bill threatens the provisions of IVF as a treatment for infertility because it defines as prohibited experimentation: (1) Any manipulation of a relevant human embryo. (2) Any procedure undertaken on, or involving the use of a relevant human embryo. (3) Creating a relevant human embryo in anticipation that the development of the full human potential of the relevant human embryo will be interrupted. by Senators Peter Baume (from 73 citizens) and Button (from 21 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator Bolkus (from 15 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 steps be taken to re-classify the present guidelines to ensure a better standard of entertainment; 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 Richardson (from 47 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the present Federal tax system is not equitable, readily understandable or manageable. It is making a material contribution to the decline in ethical standards in Australia, and in the opinion of many eminent Australians it is a tax system that basically makes us into a nation of cheats. 2. Some classes of taxpayers are more heavily taxed than others and two groups, wage and salary earners and small businesses, through the impact of inflation on the progressive rate structure, have suffered disproportionately in recent years. 3. A great many people see cheating the tax system as a necessary response to what they regard as cheating by Governments. 4. Through excessive marginal income tax rates, the spirit of free enterprise and hard work is being stifled. The groups in the community who generate savings are being discouraged from investing those savings in capital for business. 5. Any reform of the taxation system needs to be comprehensive and not piecemeal. Further, it requires an unimpeachable commitment from all political parties and parliamentarians to adopt a totally bi-partisan approach in debating tax reform proposals and legislation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will use the forthcoming Taxation Summit meeting as the occasion to announce the formation of one or more working parties committed to the development of a taxation system that will ensure that the necessary Government revenue is raised in the most equitable and efficient manner possible and that such working party (parties) be provided with adequate resources so as to permit the tabling of their recommendations in the Parliament not later than June 30, 1986. Further, your petitioners believe that one of the most significant ways this country could celebrate its Bi-centenary is through the introduction, by 1988, of legislation that will give the people a fair and equitable taxing system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. Introduction of an additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: They adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small businesses finally sell the business are not 'windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business to sustain them in retirement. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 1,010 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: (1) Imports of frozen peas from New Zealand and elsewhere have increased from 4.8 per cent of the Australian market in 1979/80 to an estimated 20 per cent in 1984/85-from 2.2 million kgs. to 8.0 million kgs. (2) As a result of these escalating imports, in 1985: Growers are faced with cuts of up to 30 per cent both in contract tonnages and prices, Hundreds of jobs in the processing industry will be lost, with many hundreds more under threat in downstream industries, Millions of dollars will be lost from sensitive regional and State economies. Your petitioners therefore request that: The Australian government: (1) Reject the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission Interim Report on Frozen peas that no assistance be provided to the industry. (2) Support the proposals made by grower organisations and Trade Unions for import restrictions and other measures of support for the Australian Frozen Pea Industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Black (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we strongly oppose the 'A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Jack Evans, because it will adversely affect sporting organisations and small businesses in the A.C.T., it reverses the onus of proof, and represents an unnecessary intrusion by Government into the private affairs of individuals and other groups. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The undersigned are convinced that an alliance, including full military co-operation, between Australia and the United States is indispensable to the defence security of the Australian Commonwealth; that every alliance involves co-operative arrangements of a practical nature; and that the following arrangements are indispensable to the effective conduct of ANZUS and any similar agreement, to wit; the reception of U.S. naval shipping (nuclear and non-nuclear) in Australian ports; the maintenance of the present U.S. installations in Australia; reasonable co-operation by Australia in U.S. missile testing programs. Your petitioners, therefore, pray the Senate, in Parliament assembled, that you will give this matter your earnest consideration, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 19 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 who have great concern for the protection of the unborn child, call upon the Government to reject the Vinson Inquiry recommendation that an Abortion Clinic be established in Canberra. And your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will reject this recommendation. by Senator Reid (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that: We, the undersigned electors, are deeply concerned at the possibility of an increase in indirect taxation currently being considered by the government. To pose a broadly based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and worsen their already precarious and impoverished position. Women who are supporting mothers, together with their children, are acknowledged as the largest single group forced to exist below the poverty line. As beneficiaries of an already inadequate government pension, their futures would be even more jeopardised if there were to be a change towards increased broadly based consumption taxation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal government not adopt the proposed shift towards increased indirect taxation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Giles (from 17 citizens) and Zakharov (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows that to pose a broadly-based consumption tax would mean a proportionately greater burden on low income groups and increase poverty-stricken victims already existing within Australia. Petition against the proposed issue of indirect consumption taxation. So 'help' we pray. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth: (i) That the reintroduction of fees would place at risk the access to tertiary education of Australian students from middle-income families, further disadvantage students from country areas, and restrict part-time enrolments, by imposing substantial financial burdens upon these students. (ii) That the imposition of tertiary fees would most severely affect those students currently disadvantaged within our education system, and would have the effect of deterring students from lower-income families from entering tertiary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (i) That post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of Australian students. (ii) That Australian youth be encouraged to enter tertiary education through both increased personal financial assistance and through the funding of tertiary education through other sources than the reintroduction of any 'user pays' principle. (iii) That the Minister for Education immediately clarify the Government's attitude concerning the imposition of tertiary fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 71 citizens). Petitions received. Motion (by Senator Coates)-by leave-agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notices of Motion Nos. 1 and 2, standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of the Credit Ordinance 1985 and the disallowance of certain words in the Supervision of Offenders (Community Service Orders) Ordinance 1985 be postponed until Thursday, 30 May 1985. Senator COATES(Tasmania) —Pursuant to standing order 109A, I give notice that it is my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name for the next day of sitting relating to the disallowance of certain words in the Crimes (Amendment) Ordinance 1985. I seek leave to have a brief explanatory statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Mr President, When I gave this notice of motion on 8 May 1985, the Committee was concerned that where important legal summonses and notices were not served personally, they could instead be left with a person who was ''apparently'' over the age of 16 and ''apparently'' resident at a person's address. The Committee considers that, given the importance of the procedure of serving a person with summonses and notices, the word ''apparently'' is too subjective and should be replaced by a clearer, more objective and more reliable expression such as ''who is or is reasonably believed to be'' over 16 and resident etc. Senators may recall that on 16 May I told the Senate that the Special Minister of State had agreed to put this clearer wording in amendments to the National Crime Authority Regulations because of the importance of the service of summons procedure. The Attorney-General is reluctant to change the wording in this Ordinance because it has been used in a number of other Ordinances in the A.C.T. The Committee considers that these Ordinances should all be changed simultaneously rather than piecemeal. This would preserve certainty in the law while also removing a potentially hazardous element of subjectivity from the process of serving important summons and notices. The Committee has written to the Attorney-General asking that he address this broader issue. The Committee has decided therefore not to seek disallowance in this particular case but will instead pursue a drafting solution to the wider problem. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, contingent upon Senator Walsh, in the course of proceedings in the Senate, concluding any speech, statement, answer to a question or comment, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) moving a motion that Senator Walsh be censured by the Senate and suspended from the sitting of the Senate for a period of 24 hours. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons through Australian airspace. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of nuclear-powered ships through Australian waters. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the passage of ships carrying nuclear weapons through Australian waters. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weapons in, and the introduction of nuclear weapons into, Australia. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the importation of nuclear hardware, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the exportation of nuclear materials, and for purposes connected therewith. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Australian Parliament (a) congratulates Mr Jon I. Royce on his election as the first Australian World President of the International Public Relations Association; (b) wishes Mr Royce success as Chairman of the 10th Triennial World Public Relations Congress to be held in Amsterdam from 3 to 7 June 1985; and (c) extends a warm invitation to delegates from around the world to visit Australia for the 11th World Congress to be held in Melbourne in April 1988, as an endorsed Australian Bicentennial event, the first time such a congress has been held in Australia. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate (a) recognising that this country is already one of the most indebted in the world, with liabilities per head in excess of Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Poland and Brazil; (b) conscious that the percentage of the Budget that will have to be set aside for interest on our national debt in coming years is predicted to rise from 8.8 per cent this financial year, to conservatively 9.5 per cent next financial year, 10.2 per cent in 1986-87 and 10.7 per cent in 1987-88; (c) being aware that our public debt interest will next year exceed our expenditure on each of health, education and for the first time defence; (d) taking into account the fact that if our export levels are not maintained the living standards of all Australians will decline further, calls on the Hawke Socialist Government to recognise the damage it is doing to this country and to take immediate action to reduce Government spending and reduce Government borrowing. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —I give notice that, contingent upon Senator Walsh, in the course of proceedings in the Senate, concluding any speech, statement, answer to a question or comment, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) moving a motion that Senator Walsh be censured by the Senate-- Senator Walsh-Why don't you have a book burning as well? Senator CHIPP —This is an interim motion, before he becomes lobotomised. My notice continues: and suspended from the sitting of the Senate for a period of 24 hours. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I table papers in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. I seek the concurrence of the Senate to incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Taxation statistics-1982-83-Supplement to the 62nd report of the Commissioner of Taxation. 2. Edward River Crocodile Farm Pty Ltd-Annual report 1983-84. 3. Nicholson River (Waanyi/Garawa) land claim-Report by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. 4. Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee-Final report 1984-85 pursuant to sub-clause 3 (2) of the Sugar Agreement 1984. 5. Aboriginal Development Commission-Annual report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 40 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980-together with comments made by the National Aboriginal Conference as required by sub-section 40 (6) of the Act-together with letters relating to the delay in tabling the report as required by section 34C (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 6. Arbitration Inspectorate-Annual report 1983-84-Pursuant to section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. 7. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Australian Defence Force-its structure and capabilities-Government response to the report. 8. Australian Defence Force Academy-2nd report. 9. Australia's Role in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle-Government response to the ASTEC report. 10. Aircraft accident investigation-Report prepared by the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation in the crash of a Beech 200 Super King Air VH-KTE plane in Adavale, Queensland on 28 August 1983. 11. Town campers assistance program-Annual report 1984-85. 12. The management of radioactive wastes arising from the medical, industrial and research use of radionuclides-report of Commonwealth-State consultative committee. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of the Hon. Ken Wriedt, a former senator for Tasmania and present Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian House of Assembly. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to Mr Wriedt a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra and particularly to the Senate. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I add to your welcome to Mr Wriedt by saying that I hope he remains the Leader of the Opposition for many years. My question of the Minister for Finance follows today's report that the Government's estimate of revenue from provisional tax this financial year will fall a massive $800m short of the Budget forecast. Is the Minister aware that the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, said a few days after the last Budget that 'at least $500m of the forecast taxation revenue from provisional taxpayers in the Budget appears to be overstated'? Does the Minister agree that Mr Howard's estimates have been proven a lot more accurate than those of the discredited present Treasurer? Is it a fact that the Government has been saved from even more embarrassment simply by the revenue gains flowing from the depreciation of the dollar? Senator WALSH —In view of the forecast attempts by two members on the other side of the House to suppress the revelation of truth in this chamber, I am not sure whether I should answer the question at all. If they cannot take disclosure of truth I suggest they should get right out of politics. There has been a significant present estimate of a shortfall in taxation receipts from other taxpayers-that is, essentially non-pay as you earn income taxpayers-of the order of $1 billion. The Australian Taxation Office made estimates before the last Budget was presented which assumed that $6,472m would be collected this year from those other taxpayers, and it is from that estimate that the shortfall has occurred. A major reason for the shortfall is that the forecast growth in farm expenses, which are tax deductible-this is a forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics-was 7.6 per cent and the real figure now appears likely to be of the order of 30 to 40 per cent. However, because of higher than forecast tax receipts in other areas there will be a much smaller impact on total receipts, probably of the order of $400m. In the final Budget deficit outcome there will be little change at all on that which was forecast. That is in marked contrast, if I may say so, to the forecast produced by the discredited former Treasurer. During his final and fatal Budget he forecast, from memory, a deficit of $1.7 billion, in round figures, which finished up as a deficit of about $4.5 billion; that is, a shortfall not in one item of revenue but in total Budget outcome, which is a divergence of some $3.8 billion. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator WALSH —Why does not the Opposition move its censure motion now? Since the whole purpose of these censure motions is to intimidate and attempt to suppress the revelation of truth in the Senate, Senator Chaney should go ahead and move his censure motion now. The divergence between the forecast and the actual outcome of the last Howard Budget deficit was of the order of $3.8 billion-I repeat: $3.8 billion; that is, $3,800m. That was the difference between the prediction and the outcome. There may be some small divergence between the predicted Budget deficit for this year and the actual outcome. I can guarantee Senator Chaney that it will be nowhere near that order of magnitude. I suggest to the discredited former Treasurer who produced that final Budget that one of the last things he ought to be talking about is inaccuracy in making forecasts of either government outlays or Budget deficits because in every year that he was Treasurer he was wrong on both of those items. As I said before, on the question of deficits he was wrong by up to $3.8 billion. In addition, as a result of the irresponsible Budget which had no economic strategy, simply a political strategy designed to get that discredited Government elected, which he produced in 1982 he left this Government with a prospective deficit for 1983-84 of almost $10 billion; that is, nearly three times as much as the error in the Budget forecast which he brought down in 1982 and the actual outcome. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister: Given his further attempt to blame Mr Howard for any discrepancies that occurred in his Budget, does he or the Treasurer accept responsibility for the very substantial discrepancy that has now been revealed in the tax figures? Senator WALSH —A substantial error has been identified in one source of income. In income in total the error is much less, absolutely. Proportionately, of course, it is very much less again. The estimates of outlays are on track and will vary very little. Senator Chaney —Because of devaluation. Senator WALSH —I would have thought that even Senator Chaney would have known that the devaluation, other things being equal, would have increased outlays and not reduced them. No such major variable was in operation when the discredited former Treasurer produced five Budgets out of six which grossly underestimated the actual level of outlays. Because of the devaluation, outlays will be increased marginally this year and not reduced. The final Budget outcome will be very close to that forecast. I say again that one of the last things I would expect any former Treasurer with any sense of shame to mention is Budget outcomes as distinct from Budget forecasts because no Treasurer in history had a record in that area as appalling as that of the previous Treasurer. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the new Commonwealth-State supported accommodation assistance program which commenced operation on 1 January this year. Is it a fact that that program is designed to help find shelter for the homeless destitute, young people and women in distress? Has the Tasmanian Government submitted recommendations to the Minister for expenditure of all new Commonwealth funds available under this program in 1984-85? Senator GRIMES —Regrettably, the answer to that question is no. I say 'regrettably' not only for the people in the situations described by Senator Tate but also for the State of Tasmania in general. The Tasmanian Minister for Community Welfare and the Elderly has yet to submit recommendations which will ensure full expenditure of the 1984-85 supported accommodation assistance program funds. The situation is the same in all States, but not in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Both the Department of Community Services and I have expressed to the States our concern that they forward submissions to achieve full expenditure of available new SAAP funds for 1984-85. There is no doubt that all the supported accommodation services in the States are in need of these funds and are suffering as a result of these delays. All States have assured the Department that they will forward the necessary submissions in time to commit all new 1984-85 funds. But they will need to ensure that their submissions are received no later than the end of the first week in June to enable them to be processed and duly considered. Preferably, the submissions should be received sooner than the end of the first week in June. I and the Government will certainly not be able to guarantee approval of submissions if there is a delay beyond the end of the first week in June. If all the submissions arrive simultaneously at the end of the first week in June there will be great difficulties. I hope that the prospect of services losing funds made available by the Commonwealth due to the States forwarding recommendations to me too late will encourage the States to take action. It is a situation that the Department and I have been striving to avoid and I hope that all Ministers will get these applications in so that the organisations which need the funds, and which have been inquiring of my office where the funds are, will be able to get them in good time. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. In light of the Government's failure accurately to estimate the return from revenue this financial year-a mistake which has just been acknowledged by the Minister for Finance to be an overestimate of about $1 billion-has any revision been made or will any be made of the estimates for future financial years? Will this result in any changes in the expenditure currently contemplated, or is the Government likely to have to change its expectations to meet its trilogy commitments? Senator WALSH —If I heard correctly, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle said that a shortfall in revenue of $1 billion has been acknowledged. To set the record straight, no such shortfall has been acknowledged. No such shortfall is likely to occur. A shortfall of that rough order of magnitude in a particular estimate of revenue, that is, in taxation from other essentially non-pay as you earn taxpayers, has been acknowledged. The precise figure will not be known for a couple of months, but no such aggregate shortfall in revenue has been acknowledged. The final shortfall in revenue, if there is a shortfall at all, is likely to be very much less than that and therefore of an order not likely to affect the trilogy because the base of the trilogy is total taxation receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product. That is not likely to be greatly at variance with the Budget estimate. As a proportion of GDP, based on a quick mental calculation, it would be of the order of 0.1 per cent. It is a very small amount when seen in that context. The Government stands by the trilogy. The Government stands by the commitment not to increase outlays, expenditure or the deficit as a proportion of GDP during the life of this Parliament as against the percentage which will be recorded in 1984-85. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General whether he is aware of a report in last Friday's Canberra Times concerning a Canberra magistrate's criticism of delays in proclaiming amendments enacted three years ago to the Commonwealth Crimes Act. Have there been such delays and, if so, why? Can the Minister say what action is being taken finally to proclaim these amendments in order to redress a situation in which apparently neither suspended sentences nor community service orders can be imposed in cases which do not warrant gaol terms? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Attorney-General that the amendments to the Commonwealth Crimes Act regarding community service orders have not yet been proclaimed. That is because arrangements have not yet been made with the States to make available State offices and State facilities to enable Federal offenders to participate in non-custodial sentencing options. We have sought State assistance in this respect but the States have made an objection to the provision in the Federal Act providing for breaches of community service orders. They would prefer to have breaches dealt with by State law. It is on that particular rock that the implementation of this highly valuable proposal has been foundering. I am advised that the matter was raised again at the recent meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, is presently engaged in writing to the State Attorneys-General to try once and for all to finalise the outstanding issue. I wish him the best of British luck. Senator CHIPP —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question. Is the Government aware that the Pentagon has decided to end a 16-year moratorium on chemical weapons production and that the United States Senate has voted to end the halt? Is the first Star Wars anti-ballistic missile experiment scheduled to take place in June? Will the deployment of the USS Alaska mean that the Reagan Administration will have exceeded the unratified SALT II ceilings on nuclear weapons? What representation has this Government made to the United States to make it aware of the Government's concerns and disagreement on these developments? At what international forums is the Government planning to raise these vital issues? Finally, is the Government planning to express its concern and dissatisfaction to the French Government over President Mitterrand's statement, as quoted in this morning's Age newspaper, that he was ready to give the order to launch a nuclear attack if necessary? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen the Press reports to which Senator Chipp refers. As to chemical weapons, the United States Administration in its request for funding in fiscal year 1986 has sought for the fourth year in a row Congressional approval to resume production of chemical weapons. The Senate has voted, also for the fourth year in a row, to approve production. I note, however, that the House of Representatives is yet to consider the Administration's request. I point out to the honourable senator that on each of the three previous occasions when the Administration sought funds for the resumption of chemical weapons production those requests ultimately were turned down by Congress. It therefore remains to be seen whether the Administration's request for fiscal year 1986 will be in fact approved by Congress. The United States Administration, I add, has sought to justify its request for the proposed chemical weapons modernisation program in terms of deterring the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from using chemical weapons against the United States of America or its allies and as an inducement for the Soviet Union to conclude a comprehensive chemical weapons convention. The Australian Government's position on chemical weapons is well known. We support the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention that would ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons. As well such a convention would involve the destruction of all existing stockpiles of chemical weapons and the dismantling of chemical weapons production facilities. It would therefore remove any country's perceived need to acquire or modernise its chemical weapons capacity in order to deter a potential attack with chemical weapons. As to that part of the question dealing with SALT II, with the deployment of the USS Alaska later this year the United States will have exceeded one of the SALT II sub-limits on delivery vehicles unless it does retire some older systems. The Government notes that the United States has said that a decision on continuing United States compliance with SALT II will be taken at the required time in the context of the international situation, United States national security requirements and Soviet actions. As to our treatment of these matters in international forums, I advise that all these subjects and others were discussed with both super-powers during the recent separate bilateral discussions in Canberra with the Soviet Union and the United States. Because of the confidential nature of these discussions it would not be appropriate for me, on behalf of Mr Hayden, to go into any further detail about those discussions. Senator Chipp may rest assured, however, that the Government will continue to make its views known on these and other important disarmament and arms control issues in all appropriate forums. Finally, as to President Mitterrand's remarks, it is part of a nuclear deterrent posture, we note, to proclaim one's willingness to retaliate with nuclear weapons if necessary. The Government's view is that President Mitterrand's remarks should be looked at in that light. We have, of course, urged France to join the nuclear disarmament process. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. Does Trans Australia Airlines plan to purchase up to 20 new Boeing 737 aircraft to upgrade its fleet? If so, is the cost of the total package in the order of $500m? What is the timetable for the introduction of the new aircraft? When will the existing aircraft be phased out? Senator RYAN —I have some information available for Senator Maguire. The Minister is aware that the Australian National Airlines Commission has had the matter under consideration for some time. The re-equipment proposals are commercial matters for decisions by the Commission. There are media reports that TAA is seeking leverage leasing with major Australian trading banks and the Government is awaiting the full details of TAA's proposal. No doubt TAA will make public its intentions on this matter at an appropriate time. Senator SHEIL —Does the Minister for Finance agree with the former head of Treasury, Mr John Stone, who said on AM this morning that the very large error in over-estimating provisional tax returns will make it appreciably less easy to frame the next Budget? If so, does the Minister foresee a need to resurrect some of his favoured revenue-raising projects, such as the reintroduction of tertiary education fees? Senator WALSH —I did not actually hear Mr Stone on AM this morning but I was told of what he said; that is, that it will make it more difficult to achieve future revenue targets. If it indicates a lower than anticipated real growth rate in the economy, that is probably true. But I can say that if Mr Stone had had his way instead of the Australian Taxation Office, the error would have been greater. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the news release of 22 May 1985 wherein the General Practitioners Society in Australia criticised a decision by government to increase schedule fees for doctors as irresponsible under the present difficult economic circumstances? The General Practitioners Society said it would rather see reinstatement of private commercial insurance so that public money could be spent on the really needy. Can the Minister comment on the timing of this proposal by the General Practitioners Society, particularly in light of the recent doctors strike in New South Wales and their promotion of private insurance for those who can pay and public money for the needy as a step to divide Australians into the haves and have-nots, which is counter to this Government's policy? Senator GRIMES —I understood Senator Crowley to say that the General Practitioners Society has made such a statement. The General Practitioners Society makes frequent statements of this type whenever it gets the opportunity to push its extreme right-wing views. For instance, it opposed the provision of subsidised health services to the pensioners in this community. It advocates the abolition of the repatriation health scheme. It claims that the best way to provide medicine in this community is through what it describes as a market system whereby it can charge what it thinks the market will allow and whereby its members can decide, as medical practitioners, who in the community is worthy of treatment for nothing, or treatment at a concessional rate. These doctors make these claims even though their whole medical teaching experience has not trained them to make such judgments and even though in their whole experience since leaving medical school when they are at the bottom of the medical totem pole as junior residents a whole series of people in the hospital situation and later in practice will do as they tell them and will have to obey their orders. The problem with people from the General Practitioners Society is that they believe that medicine is a market place and they frequently advocate that we all be followers of Adam Smith. However, I always remind them that Adam Smith talked about a fair market being one in which both the consumer and the seller had a choice, one in which both the consumer and the seller had knowledge of what was being sold and what was being purchased. That does not apply in the health system. What applies in the health system is that most people have no choice when they get ill or when they wish to get treated. Also they do not have the knowledge; in most cases the knowledge is on one side. Even Senator Crowley and I, being medical graduates, may well be in the situation where we have no detailed knowledge of what the doctor we consult may or may not want to do to us. I think that the Society is arguing on an artificial premise. The problem with the General Practitioners Society is that it is not a medical organisation; it is an extreme right-wing political organisation led by people who in the past, or even at present, have been the leading lights in such parties as the Workers Party and the Progress Party in this country. They have gone to the people of this country at elections and have been soundly defeated each time. They have got less than a few per cent of the vote. These doctors, having failed to convince the electors of this community of the justice of their ways and of their views, now try to influence the electorate and affairs by using their own privileged situation in the market. However, I am sure as most honourable senators know, the Society represents a small percentage of doctors in this community, a greedy percentage of doctors in this community. It does not accept that people who are disadvantaged in this community need special treatment other than the special treatment it is willing to give them. This Government rejects its views; this Government ignores such statements as it puts out at frequent intervals. Fortunately, so does the rest of the community and so does most of the medical profession. Senator HILL —I refer the Minister for Finance to the statement of Commonwealth Government transactions for January which revealed that industrial action by public servants held up $900m in Commonwealth revenues and added $18m to liabilities by way of increased interest payments. Is it acceptable to the Minister that this industrial action, which added to the Government's budgetary problems and disrupted services around the country, should have been rewarded with a pay rise? Senator WALSH —I do not think the two issues are linked at all. The question of the pay rise was settled by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last week after a hearing at which all parties with a significant interest were represented. As for the January statement of financial transactions, as I recall it, the facts as stated by Senator Hill are accurate. I do not believe that the imposition of work bans, which cost the revenue money or sabotage the administration of government generally, is an acceptable work practice. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Has his attention been drawn to the claim of the Northern Territory Chief Minister published in today's Australian Financial Review? The claim is: We are provided with no more and no less than in the States. Is this claim accurate? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to this claim. The short answer to the question is no, it certainly is not accurate. I have a piece of paper here which contains details and I will mention just a few of the ways in which the claim is false. Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory this year will be of the order of $932m. This represents $6,550 for every man, woman and child in the Territory, or to put it another way, $125 a week; that is, $125 a week per capita in direct Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory. That does not include social security payments, unemployment benefits and so on. In comparison, the States are expected to get an average of $1,277 per capita from the Commonwealth this year; that is, something less than 20 per cent of the amount per capita paid to the Northern Territory. Between 1978-79, the year in which self-rule was granted to the Territory, and 1984-85, Commonwealth payments to the Northern Territory have grown twice as fast as Commonwealth payments to the States; that is, 22 per cent a year in dollars of the day for the Northern Territory compared with 11 per cent for the States. The claim of the Northern Territory Chief Minister is published in a 16-page survey in today's Australian Financial Review. I have also noted that the survey's major advertising has come from Northern Territory Government sources. There are large advertisements over the name of the Chief Minister, advertisements from the Northern Territory Development Corporation, the Department of Mines and Energy, the Department of Industry and Small Business, for Yulara from what appears to be the Tourist Commission, from the Northern Territory Electricity Commission, the Northern Territory Insurance Office and, unaccountably for a national newspaper, or any other newspaper for that matter, the Northern Territory Totalisator Administration Board. Other major advertisements came from the Darwin City Council and from private firms which are clearly interested in such big Government developments as the proposed Channel Island power station and Yulara. Anybody who had any spare cash was presumably asked to donate. I presume that Federal Hotels would have declined either to advertise or to donate, having had its property expropriated from it towards the end of last year by the discredited former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The survey's articles seem largely to reflect the advertising base. They speak of the need for heavy government involvement in the Northern Territory, most of which would require support from Commonwealth funds and the Australian taxpayer-for example, yet again, the Darwin-Alice Springs railway, which the irresponsible Leader of the Opposition promised to build prior to the last election, the Darwin Airport, and Darwin Trade Development Zone, the Channel Island power station and so on. I could go on and on, but I think I have probably said enough to demonstrate that not only is the claim of the Northern Territory Chief Minister that the Territory is provided with no more and no less than the States wrong, it is grotesquely and almost obscenely wrong. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the notes that he has just quoted those figures from. Senator WALSH —I table them. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is to the Minister for Education. Labor announced in the mini-Budget that it would cut participation and equity program funds in half for 1986 and the Minister said here last week that the effect would fall on both the technical and further education and school components of the program. How does she envisage the cuts being put into place? Specifically, will approximately half the numbers of unemployed, handicapped, isolated, non-English speaking, Aboriginal, or women students be unable to get access to the program or access through technical and further eduction? Further, will the Minister explain how she can assert, as she did last week, that there were advantages in halving the PEP program? Will she explain especially what the benefits may be for those disadvantaged Australians who look to the program for their opportunities? Senator RYAN —The cut in the participation and equity program will probably be spread roughly equally between the technical and further education and school sectors. However, before making that decision I have asked the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission to examine ways to ensure that the money available for next year's program will be directed to the most needy students. Upon receiving that advice, I will make the decision about how to reorganise the program. Any simple mathematical division of the amount of money and the number of people in places will not give Senator Baume an indication of how we will proceed with the program for next year. I should make it clear that the program will continue next year and for a fourth year. So the amount of money available for the program over a two-year period will not be decreased at all-it will be a four-year program instead of a three-year program. Whereas in some respects that is to be regretted, it is inaccurate for Senator Baume to suggest that the money available under the program will overall be any less. It will not. Senator Baume asked what possible advantages there would be in spreading the program out. I make it quite clear that I would have preferred, budgetary circumstances permitting, to have maintained the level of expenditure that was initially envisaged for that program. As it was not possible, slowing the program down and spreading it over to a fourth year will allow teachers, administrators, students and community organisers that have been involved in planning some of these programs at school level to review what they have done to date, to assess how far certain programs have achieved the objective-I remind honourable senators that the objective is increased participation in schools to the end of secondary schooling-and, where it is necessary, to redirect some of the targeting of the program. It is a fact that because a large amount of money flowed into this program last year in some cases schools were not as well prepared as they might have been for the money that was made available to them. That is not criticism of this program. It is always the case when a new program is introduced that such a decentralised and complicated system of administration as we have in Australia takes a while to get into gear. I believe the program is getting into gear now. I am determined that the slowing down of the program will have some benefits, and those benefits will be better planning and administration, and even more precise targeting of the additional funds than has been possible to date. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question. Did I understand the Minister to say in her response that halving the program for 1986 does not represent a 50 per cent cut? Will she not agree that half the money for 1986 will mean a very significant reduction in the numbers of disadvantaged Australians who will be able to make use of the program? Senator RYAN —I suppose that I will have to repeat myself yet again. The amount of money that will be available for the rest of the program will be the same as that originally intended, but the money will be available over 1986 and 1987-making it a four-year program-instead of being available over a three-year period as originally intended. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer him to reports in last Thursday's Melbourne Age to the effect that Australia is to mediate between the Soviet Union and the United States of America over nuclear weapons control and that Australia is suggesting improvements to verification procedures for future nuclear test ban agreements. I ask: Are the reports accurate? What framework is being contemplated for these negotiations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can confirm the general accuracy of the substance of the report from Geoffrey Barker appearing in the Age last week. The situation is that during the visit of an American team to Canberra for bilateral disarmament talks with Australia from 1 to 2 May it was proposed to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the Australian Government might use whatever good offices or influences it might have in its dealings with the Soviet Union to convey the very keen commitment of the United States to its proposal for reciprocal visits by US and Soviet on-site inspection teams to each other's nuclear test sites. It was agreed that Australia would work for the promotion of this proposal. Arrangements were made by officials to consult the United States on technical aspects of the US proposal before making an approach to the Soviet Union. Consideration of the matter is actively proceeding. Senator VIGOR —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In the light of last week's High Court of Australia decision on television standards, is the Government moving to give statutory backing to the arrangement under which the under-resourced Film Censorship Board examines and classifies television films that are not in the 'children's' category? If not, does the Government intend to throw responsibility for this classification entirely on to the stations? In that case, will the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal be given extra staff to monitor how well the stations' output lives up to the promises of performance made when licences are renewed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have been advised by the Attorney-General that the High Court decision of a few days ago is presently under consideration. The Attorney-General intends, following the review of that decision and its implications, to consult the Minister for Communications on the whole matter of the future classification of imported television materials. Until that process has worked itself out, the Film Censorship Board will certainly continue to perform this function, as it has since 1956. Senator SIBRAA —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports stating that a Sydney woman and her teenage son could become the first Australians to be hanged in an Asian prison for drug smuggling? Does the Australian Government have any responsibilities in this matter? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Department of Foreign Affairs information about the position of Mrs Lorraine Cohen and her son, Aaron, is confined basically to that gleaned from recent media reports. But it is the case that several of these reports have quite incorrectly stated or implied that they are Australian citizens. It is the understanding of the Department of Foreign Affairs that Mrs Cohen and her son are New Zealand citizens travelling on New Zealand passports. Any consular assistance is thus the responsibility of the New Zealand authorities in Malaysia. I make it clear that the kind of assistance that can be rendered by any government to its nationals is extremely limited, especially when processes are being carried out properly in accordance with the local law of the country in question. Whatever one's views might be about the death penalty-my position and, I guess, that of most people in this place in opposition to the death penalty is very well known-the fact remains that the offence of trafficking in hard drugs is extremely serious. It is perfectly understandable that Malaysian law, in common with the law of many other countries in the region, should deal with it extremely harshly. The present case, whatever its merits may be-of course, I make no comment whatsoever about that-certainly gives stark weight to the advice which is given by the Australian Government to all intending travellers in our region and elsewhere; namely, that the consequences of disobeying local drug laws can be desperately serious. I hope that that warning is heeded once again as a result of the outcome, whatever it may be, of this case. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to the article appearing on page 3 of the Australian Financial Review today headed 'SA Premier joins call to stop ALP rivalry' and, in particular, to a reported quotation of John Bannon in which he said: I believe the people of Australia are each day becoming increasingly disillusioned with hearing about the latest factional brawl in Canberra. I also refer him to the opening line of that article: Bickering and rivalry between ALP factions is emerging as a major test for the Hawke Government. I ask the Leader whether he has seen that article. I further ask: Has the extensive brawling between the factions of the Labor Party contributed, firstly, to a lack of confidence by Australians in the capacity of the Prime Minister and this Government to govern and, secondly, to a wavering of international confidence in this Government and its Leader? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the article. I keep reading these things in the newspapers. They do not bother me much. I know that people on the other side of the House will inevitably get excited about any opportunity to make political capital out of such articles drummed up in newspapers. Senator Chaney —Aren't we awful? Senator BUTTON —Yes, you are dreadful, absolutely dreadful. Journalists, in the absence of anything more constructive to write about, are giving undue emphasis to these matters, too. Senator ARCHER —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Does the Government see the United States farm export plan due to be introduced from 1 June 1985, which is aimed at being a retaliatory move to recapture markets taken by the European Economic Community, as producing a situation likely to present a real threat to Australia's rural exports? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the comment in question. I will direct the question to the Minister for Trade and obtain an early answer. Senator MAGUIRE —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen the latest information on days lost as a result of industrial disputes in Australia? Is the Minister aware that the level of industrial disputes in my State of South Australia now has fallen to a very low level, one similar to that prevailing in Japan, our major trading partner? Senator WALSH —I have seen an Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin containing this information although I am not sure whether it is quite the latest. There does not appear to be a date on the one I have, although it is quite recent. It shows the number of working days lost per thousand employees for both the month of January 1985 and the 12 months ended January 1985. It shows that South Australia has the lowest level of days lost per thousand employees of any State and a remarkable consistency between the figure for the 12 months ended January 1985, which is some 55 working days lost per thousand employees, and the figure for the whole of 1984, which is 56 working days lost per thousand employees. Those figures were roughly half the level which prevailed in the year before. However, I regret to note that in Queensland the reverse is the case. For the 12 months ended January 1984, 167 working days per thousand employees were lost in Queensland, as against 117 in South Australia for the same period. Regrettably, the Queensland figure for the 12 months to the end of January 1985 had increased to some 301. So, the very commendably low level of days lost through industrial disputes per thousand employees in South Australia is unfortunately grossly inflated in the national context by the Queensland figure, which is currently running at almost six times the level of the South Australian figure. That is, pro rata, there is six times as much time lost through industrial disputes in Queensland as there is in South Australia. I suspect that that is not entirely unrelated to the governments in the two States. Senator PUPLICK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Can the Minister confirm the advice and the public assurances given by his ministerial colleagues, Messrs Beazley, Brown and Morris, and I understand by himself, that the introduction of inward duty-free shopping in Australia would require and be proceeded with only by way of passage of legislation through the Parliament? Will inward duty-free shopping be available in Australia by 1 July 1985? Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible not to advance this matter further until the Government has received and studied the report of the current Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into passenger concessions? Senator BUTTON —I cannot pretend that I am unaware of this issue because Senator Puplick discussed it with me on Friday. It is clear that inward duty-free shopping will not be introduced by 1 July 1985, apart from anything else for technical reasons. I am asked to be judgmental about whether it would be sensible not to advance the matter of inward duty-free shopping before the Industries Assistance Commission reports on the general question of passenger concessions. The best answer I can give to that is that it seems to me that it would be moderately inconsistent not to have regard to the IAC report on this issue in relation to the topic of inward duty-free shopping. Senator PUPLICK —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister clarify the first part of the question, in which I asked whether inward duty-free shopping could be proceeded with other than by the passage of legislation? Senator BUTTON —I believe not. Senator COLSTON —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of a recent statement by a representative of the computer industry that the acute shortage of skilled computer personnel in Australia reflected a need for a review of immigration policies as a means of increasing the pool of such professionals? Can the Minister advise whether consideration has been given to such a proposal? Senator GRIMES —My attention has been drawn to the statement by Mr Nick Perch, who co-ordinated a survey of the computer industry and commented on the shortage of skills, the need for more training, and what he described as a more enlightened immigration policy to increase the pool of professionals available. I suggest, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hurford, suggested, that skilled migration policies enable a response to such needs for more skilled migrants by meeting the medium term general needs through the occupational share system-a system which in 1984-85 provided for 550 people with computer skills and which probably will have a similar share in 1985-86-and by meeting immediate specialist needs through the employer nomination scheme whereby employers can lodge nominations for individuals or groups of skilled workers, provided the labour market and industrial relations tests are met. Within the scope of these two programs there is a sufficiently positive and flexible system to meet the needs of the computer industry. In 1983-84 some 1,200-odd computer professionals arrived in Australia as migrants. In the first half of 1984-85 almost 600 of such specialists arrived. I think the existing system can cope with the shortage described by Mr Perch. However, I will refer Senator Colston's question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs so that I can get any further details or an update on those figures if necessary. Senator SHORT —I refer the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce to my question to him last week concerning whether the issue of business tax reform would be addressed at the July tax summit and whether he has had negotiations on it with the business community in the same way as the Government has been engaging in negotiations with the tax negotiating committee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions on other tax matters. Does the Minister recall replying that business taxation will probably be on the summit agenda, that he has not had negotiations with the business community and that business taxation issues will not be treated in a different manner from other taxation issues? Could the Minister explain to the Senate how it is that business taxation will not be treated differently from other taxation issues if he is not certain that the subject will even be included on the summit agenda and if the Government has not had negotiations on the matter with the business community? Finally, I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the conclusion of the recently released report of the Bureau of Industry Economics on business taxation that the present business tax system has 'significant adverse effects upon the efficiency and growth of the Australian economy' and therefore adverse effects on all Australians? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question is getting a bit long. Senator SHORT —I am just concluding. If he does agree with this conclusion I ask whether he will ensure that business taxation is given a much higher profile at the tax summit than currently appears likely. Senator BUTTON —First of all, let me say that the discussions between the Government and the ACTU have, to use Senator Short's terminology, received a high profile in relation to the taxation summit. The simple reason for that is that if the Government is to put forward in the White Paper a proposal for a comprehensive consumption tax, the consideration of how that tax is, and the effects of that tax are, treated in the wages system is of fundamental importance to the question of whether such a tax can successfully be introduced. That is the reason why considerable emphasis has been given to discussions with the ACTU on the question of a consumption tax. Of course other issues have been involved in discussions with the ACTU. Insofar as the business community is concerned, there have of course been ad hoc, if you like, discussions between Ministers, such as me, and the business community on these issues. The Business Council of Australia, for example, has published a document on taxation reform. Those sorts of things, which I think have been done by the Confederation of Australian Industry also, have been submitted to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and have been substantial inputs into the taxation review which is being conducted by the Government in preparation for the White Paper. Senator Short's question was, of course, also concerned with what will be on the agenda at the taxation summit. I think he somewhat misinterpreted the answer I gave last week. Let me make it quite clear that the issue of business taxation will be addressed in the White Paper. It is safe to assume, I think, that most of the issues addressed in the White Paper will be on the agenda, naturally, for the taxation summit and will be discussed there. I make the point again that numerous representatives of business will be invited to the tax summit to put forward their views. I do not for one moment think that they will come here and sit mute and allow the question of business taxation not to be dealt with. If I am at the taxation summit-as a matter of fact, I do not know whether I have been invited yet-I will not allow the question of business taxation to be ignored. But I do not believe for a moment it can be because it is quite crucial to any reform of the taxation system and is crucial for the sorts of reasons which Senator Short himself points to in raising the question of the recent discussion paper of the Bureau of Industry Economics on business taxation issues. I am asked whether I agree with the Bureau's views. I agree with the broad thrust of what the BIE is saying. I believe that many of those issues which are raised by the Bureau of Industry Economics in its discussion paper will be dealt with in the draft White Paper to be published by the Government. That is my belief. There may be some confusion, as it were-I am not saying that it is deliberate in any sense-between what is likely to appear in the White Paper and what is likely to be technically on the agenda for the summit, but I am sure that business taxation will be dealt with in the White Paper and at the summit. Senator ELSTOB —Is the Minister representing the Attorney-General satisfied that the role of the Human Rights Commission is widely known to the general community? Is the Minister able to say whether there are any plans further to promote the Commission and the role it plays, particularly in dealing with complaints? Senator GARETH EVANS —The role of the Human Rights Commission is becoming increasingly well known to the community, as is apparent from the number of complaints the Commission receives. The Commission, apart from its reports, is taking active steps to promote the work it does. The largest promotion campaign it has undertaken was last year's campaign to inform the community about the Sex Discrimination Act. I indicated in answer to a recent question the statistical implications of the campaign and the way in which the Act has been operating so far. In addition, the Commission produced a 28-minute film entitled Talkback about human rights and entered into arrangements with 150 teachers and school's throughout Australia to use in the classrooms educational material produced by the Commission. Information is disseminated from the Commission offices in Brisbane and Perth, co-operative offices in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and representatives in Hobart and Darwin. Each year on Human Rights Day the human rights media awards mark the contribution of the media to human rights issues and the Commission assists groups with community education grants. Currently, as has been indicated previously by the Attorney-General and by me on his behalf in this place, the structure and operations of the Human Rights Commission are under review, and no doubt this aspect of publicity and promotion of the Commission's operations is being examined with a view to possible improvements. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask whether the Government has bowed to factional pressure to end the hypocritical hoax that in 1983 it inherited a $9.6 billion deficit and, as a result, could not keep its election promises. Is it a fact that table 6 of the newly released report on Forward Estimates shows that the Government actually increased expenditure in 1983-84 by a staggering $2.1 billion, the very year when it thought it could fool the people about the size of the deficit it had inherited? Does the table confirm that the Government did in fact go on that magical spending spree that the Prime Minister envisaged during the election campaign when he invited Australians to throw away their calculators? Do the recent cuts confirm that Australia is now paying dearly for the Prime Minister's gross extravagance and mismanagement? Senator BUTTON —The statement of Forward Estimates speaks for itself and Senator Walters speaks for herself. I rely on the statement of Forward Estimates. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister for Finance aware that Queensland is the only State without a public accounts committee? In view of the fact that there is to be a Premiers Conference this week, could the Minister arrange for the Queensland Premier to receive some instruction and guidance from other State Premiers about the establishment and operation of their public accountability procedures? Will the Minister also ensure that accountability and the setting of genuine priorities are high on the agenda in discussions with the Queensland Government, so that Australian taxpayers can be reassured that Federal funds are not being frittered away in the maintenance of the Premier's private air force or the State's racing industry? The PRESIDENT —Order! The first part of the honourable senator's question is not relevant to the Minister's portfolio, but I will allow the second part of the question. Senator WALSH —I will endeavour to see what can be done to instruct the Queensland Government in the responsible handling of public moneys. Should that be successful, it will stand in marked contrast to the Queensland Government's existing record on the handling of public moneys. Senator Reynolds mentioned, for example, that $5m has been diverted to build a dam on the MacKenzie River, for no apparent reason other than to provide under-priced irrigation water for the Premier's son, who owns some 20,000 acres of land there. If that instruction is successful one would also hope that other benefits might be reaped ultimately by the people of Queensland and by Australians in general because of improved economic performance in Queensland. As an indication of the state of the Queensland economy compared with that of my own State of Western Australia, and nationally-I interpolate that Western Australia is included because Queensland and Western Australia are generally known as the resource States, which have a very similar economic base but very dissimilar economic outcomes and economic trends at present, Western Australia being favourable, and Queensland otherwise-I table the document which sets out the difference between those two States and the national average. The PRESIDENT —I present a special report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings relating to the broadcast of excerpts of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —by leave-I move: That the Senate authorises the broadcasting and rebroadcasting on Australian radio and television stations of sound recordings of excerpts of its proceedings for a trial period from 20 August 1985 until the end of the 1985 Budget period of sittings, subject to the conditions determined for this purpose by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. It is intended that the conditions governing the broadcasting and rebroadcasting of excerpts of proceedings should initially be those determined by the Committee in the report which has just been presented by the President. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —I have not previously seen the motion. I understand that it is in the same form as that moved in the other place. Perhaps we could deal with it when I have had a chance to look at it. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(3.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I was interested to receive today the statistics from the Australian Taxation Office which relate principally to the year 1982-83, for individuals and partnerships, and to 1981-82 with regard to companies. It is useful to have these statistics as a background to the taxation matters that will be discussed at the tax summit next month. It is interesting to look at the various statistics with regard to all the categories now available to us. They come to us at a time when concern has been expressed about the figures on which any recommendations to the tax summit might be based. As we have heard today the calculations for the 1984-85 tax year have shown substantial miscalculations in a number of areas. As I understood it from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) today, there has been a shortfall of about $1 billion from the non-pay as you earn taxpayers this year. The Taxation Office estimates of the various categories of tax have shown this substantial discrepancy between this and what had been its forecast. I raise this matter because it would be of interest to know on what the Treasurer (Mr Keating) based the figures in the White Paper which he has had prepared as information for and with recommendations to the tax summit. We are now told that there has been something like a $1 billion shortfall in tax collections. It raises the question whether the calculations provided for the tax summit discussions will be corrected to allow for what has been publicly acknowledged as a miscalculation in the figures released at Budget time last year. It also raised the question of the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with regard to the net benefits from devaluation, which he promised would reduce either the deficit or taxes and charges. As we understand that taxes and charges will be over half a billion dollars, those who might have expected some reduction in either the deficit or in taxes and government charges will be reminded of that promise. As has been stated by the Minister for Finance today, the benefit from devaluation will simply be used to offset the rather substantial miscalculation in the amount of tax to be received this year. This means that the proposals put by the Treasurer in the White Paper will need to be scrutinised very carefully to see whether that $1 billion is reflected accurately in any suggestions he puts forward with regard to the substantial changes that are envisaged in the recommendations, as we understand them. If there are to be changes from direct to indirect taxation and if there is to be a proper discussion at the tax summit, it ought to cover taxes that affect companies as well as those that affect individuals. Something as substantial as an $800m shortfall in provisional tax will have some effect not only during this year but also in subsequent years and could have a very basic effect on any recommendations that are put forward by the Government. I have used the opportunity of the tabling of the statistics from the Commissioner of Taxation to raise these matters to ensure that careful scrutiny is given to the basic figures used as the foundation for recommendations that will be put forward by the Government to the tax summit. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(3.17) —I wish to address a few remarks to the supplement to the sixty-second report to Parliament of the Commissioner of Taxation, which publishes taxation statistics and which was tabled today. Unfortunately, the data is in respect of 1982-83. The presentation of the report was somewhat delayed and therefore is almost two years out of date. Much of the information compiled relates to taxation under the policies of the previous Liberal Government. Therefore, the figures do not reflect the policy changes which were made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the May 1983 economic statement. However, the tables in the report do give us some insights into the unequal distribution of income in Australia. I instance some figures in the report that show that some 77 per cent of Australians in 1982-83 had taxable incomes below $20,000. But that group-77 per cent of Australians-had only 59 per cent of the income. That shows quite a disparity. That disparity is reflected in the other distribution figures in the tables. Page 43 of the report indicates the number of taxpayers who received the so-called concessional expenditure rebate from personal income tax. That rebate is available to taxpayers for payments such as life assurance contributions, superannuation, rates, taxes, and so forth, provided those taxpayers can meet a threshold expenditure of $2,000. The report shows that that concessional expenditure rebate in 1982-83 cost the revenue over $120m. It is very interesting to note that only 10.1 per cent of all taxpayers in Australia claimed the concessional expenditure rebate. However, of those taxpayers earning above $32,000, 45.5 per cent claimed the rebate. Therefore, that particular type of tax rebate is availed of more by wealthier taxpayers than by average taxpayers. That particular group earning above 32,000, which translated into today's incomes would be significantly higher, received some $26m out of a total cost to revenue of $120m. Of course, the revenue figures will be different from the 1983-84 financial year and subsequent financial years as a result of the policy changes made in May 1983. But the point still remains that that sort of rebate, such as the concessional expenditure rebate, depends overwhelmingly on the ability of taxpayers to undertake certain expenditures. It can therefore be assumed that the wealthier taxpayer will be more able to afford that sort of expenditure and therefore avail himself or herself of the taxation rebate. The report also provides some illuminating information on those taxpayers who claim the so-called dependent spouse rebate. Under that heading the report also refers to daughter-housekeeper rebates. The total cost of the dependent spouse rebate and the daughter-housekeeper rebate was $899m in the 1982-83 financial year. Of all taxpayers, 19.4 per cent claimed the dependent spouse rebate. However, a much higher proportion of those taxpayers with taxable incomes above $32,000 claimed the rebate. In fact, some 32.5 per cent of taxpayers in the highest income bracket claimed the dependent spouse rebate, compared with an average figure for all Australian taxpayers of 19.4 per cent. The Commissioner of Taxation further underlines these figures on page 128 of his report where it is made clear that the mean taxable income of those Australians obtaining the full dependent spouse rebate was $20,451, compared with a mean taxable income for all Australian taxpayers of only $15,594 in that financial year. It shows that those taxpayers receiving the full dependent spouse rebate had taxable incomes, on average, one-third higher than the mean. It suggests that there is some need for this tax rebate to be better targeted on needier groups in the community. The table on page 364 indicates that the Commissioner of Taxation now has the ability to match up the incomes of couples, husbands and wives, and I think that should serve as a warning to those taxpayers in the community who still persist in claiming for fictitious dependent spouses. The Commissioner of Taxation now has the ability to match up the returns of married couples and to check their tax liabilities. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.23) —There are so many tables in this report which have great relevance to the Senate and which require detailed examination-after all, the report is 540-odd pages long-that I would like to raise some matters on Thursday. I seek leave to continue my remarks on that occasion. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.24) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Some of the most entertaining debates we have had in this chamber-- Senator Lewis —Georgie isn't here. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator Georges is not in the chamber, but some interesting debates occurred between Senator Georges and former Senator Cavanagh when the reports of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd were brought in. Senator Macklin —That was the turtle farms. Senator PETER BAUME —Yes, particularly when they dealt with the turtle farms. This paper, dealing with the Edward River Crocodile Farm Pty Ltd, relates to the company that was formerly Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. That company formerly operated the ill-fated turtle farms which I and other people who had the misfortune to be on the Public Accounts Committee at the time toiled with so-- Senator Puplick —Unsuccessfully. Senator PETER BAUME —Unsuccessfully, as Senator Puplick said, as we tried to unravel its financial affairs. When I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs we were able to consolidate the activities of Applied Ecology to the one project which looked as though it had some prospect of long term commercial viability, that is, the Edward River crocodile farm. I am a bit careful when I say that because the Wiluna emu farm needed special attention but I will just concentrate on the Edward River crocodile farm. Having had a lot of contact with what went on in the breeding and preparing of crocodiles for harvest I must say that those who worked on the farm had my admiration. They are braver men than I am. This report demonstrates, firstly, that the crocodile farm is a long way from becoming self-sufficient, which is one of the hopes that we had had. Secondly, while it received over $440,000 in government grants it was able to show a $23,000 profit. That is to say, it spent some-- Senator Georges —Terrific! Senator PETER BAUME —I am delighted to see that Senator Georges has come into the chamber. I hope that he will tell us about the turtles. The Edward River crocodile farm spent some $23,000 less than it received. What concerns me is that there are those of us who have a genuine interest in whether this enterprise can become self-supporting, whether a market can be found and what amount of time has to elapse before it can start marketing the crocodile skins. These factors are not clearly set out. In fact, the operating report of the company is really quite inadequate. It simply says that the principal activities for 1983-84 have been: . . . the continuing operation and management of the Crocodile Farm at Edward River, Queensland, on behalf of the Aboriginal Community at that location; That tells us absolutely nothing about the progress of the company and whether we can look forward to it making a profit. However, what is really important is that we are prepared to show good will towards this project which offers some prospect of a self-sustaining profit-making, employment-generating activity in the Edward River region. It is a project, furthermore, about which the local community had a lot of enthusiasm and faith. I make one further observation. At page 9 of the report under the heading 'Income and Expenditure Statement' I see a very small item of income-$4,900 from the sale of crocodiles. I hope that this is only the first income generating commercial activity on behalf of this community. I hope that it presages the community's moving soon into full production. It is very important that organisations such as the Edward River crocodile farm are able to show that they can operate successfully for the benefit of a wider Aboriginal community. I am equally concerned that the community at Wiluna in Western Australia should be able to make adequate arrangements for the emu operation there. In a sense, the turtle farm experience has been very helpful because it-- Senator Georges —Oh! Senator PETER BAUME —It has been one of the steps along the way to show us what should not be done in trying to advance the cause of Aboriginal people. I just hope that next year we will have another report showing the considerable harvesting and sale of crocodiles and perhaps even an operating profit by this very hopeful Aboriginal community. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(3.28) —As I was listening to the debate in my room I was attracted by what Senator Peter Baume had to say about what happened in the past. I thought that all this was in the past. I thought that Applied Ecology Pty Ltd had been wound up. I was not aware that a remnant of Applied Ecology was still operating. Let me make it perfectly clear that Applied Ecology was set up as a means to distribute moneys provided to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In great haste it took-- Senator Haines —How does that fit with the Animal Welfare Committee? Senator GEORGES —It does not fit very well at all. What the Department endeavoured to do in some great haste was to distribute moneys to the Aboriginal people by means of this device and to prove that when Aborigines, like all others, have a rather odd scheme imposed upon them, that scheme will fail. This concept was ridiculous, and it should have been proven so a number of times. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts should have brought the whole thing to a quick end, but it did not. It accepted the whitewash, by an overseas scientist and a smart accountant from Victoria, that this sort of scheme could proceed. We are now being reminded that there is still in operation what I consider to be one of the greatest hoaxes that has been imposed upon this Parliament, to the misfortune of the Aboriginal people. We have to be fairly honest about it; if we want to give money to the Aboriginal people we should do it in a reasonable and sensible way, without mutilating either crocodiles or turtles in the process. The great blanket scheme in the United States was a fantastic scheme whereby the United States Government endeavoured to distribute money to the Indians by providing them with materials to knit and weave, and then brought back those materials. The United States Government could have saved itself from administering the whole operation by giving the money directly to the people to use as they saw fit. Our scheme was a damned sight worse, because it used species of animals, and mutilated them in the process, in order to provide some sort of activity for the Aboriginal people. This crocodile farm was bound to failure from the beginning. What it endeavoured to do was to take crocodiles from the wild. I remember the story of the two Pavusa brothers whom we supplied with land rovers and funds to collect crocodiles up and down the Cape York Peninsula. The crocodiles were wrapped in hessian so that they could be kept moist, put on Bush Pilot Airways aircraft, flown to Edward River and let go, and the first wet season the crocodiles went back north again. They were collected again by the Pavusa brothers, put on Bush Pilot aircraft, flown back to Edward River and the next wet season they went back north again. What a circular motion this proved to be. It was to the advantage of the Pavusa brothers, Bush Pilots Airways and the Aborigines at Edward River, but to the complete disadvantage of the crocodiles. At that time I was not Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, but I am now. I would have thought that by now we would be far away from this sort of endeavour and this sort of project. Yet we have Senator Baume saying that it was a marvellous idea. We spent $400,000 in order to make $23,000. It seems to me that we should accept that the Aboriginal people are intelligent and should not have this sort of scheme imposed upon them. After all, one realises just how this sort of scheme has distorted the social life of the people of Torres Strait and the people of various communities around Australia. They knew that the whole thing was a farce but, of course, had they exposed it as a farce they would have deprived themselves of a considerable amount of income. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.34) —My professional status has been recognised in milking cows, but I am surely an amateur in breeding crocodiles. Still, I have been to Edward River quite a few times, and in the middle of summer, and I have taken an interest in it every time I have gone there. I do not think it is quite as bad now as Senator Georges would make out. The crocodiles which are to be sold for hides are in pens. There is no chance of them getting away. There is no chance of the breeding crocodiles getting away. Some female crocodiles which have been bred are put back into the larger breeding lagoons. A couple of things concern me. First of all, the crocodile farmers could not get a Federal licence to export hides because they could not get a licence from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries to kill them. They could not get a licence from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries to kill them because they could not get a licence from the Federal Department of Primary Industry to export the hides. I believe that crazy situation has been resolved. The first kill was done last year and the hides were stored ready for export. I believe they have been since exported. Applied Ecology Pty Ltd is based in Cairns. The crocodile farmers come out from Cairns on a rotational basis. Surprisingly, crocodiles do not need to be fed as often as one would think; I think it is about once a week. The Aborigines, including the council chairman, Jackson Shortjoe, help out with the feed. They shoot feral pigs and feral cattle and help cut up the meat and put it in the freezers. The crocodiles are fed every Thursday afternoon. I think that the Aborigines could be utilised more in this endeavour. I am hopeful, as Senator Baume is, that now the farm is running-the first kill has been made and the first hides have been exported-it will be run on a profitable basis and will be of use to Aborigines on the Edward River settlement. It is a rather isolated settlement. For months of the year that place is cut off from supplies by road. There is also a problem during the wet season shooting feral beasts for meat. I do not have the gloom that Senator Georges has about the scheme. I think it can be run on a profitable basis. It can be of more use to the Aborigines in the area as well as an interest. I also pay tribute to those Aborigines who make artifacts for the local craft shop. When the tourist buses go through the shop does quite a good trade. This is just one other project that can be of use to them and can provide a profit-making operation for them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.38) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. One of the untruths that is thrown at me as I move around Australia is that land is given to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for frivolous reasons or with undue haste or, alternatively, that it is given to Aboriginal people without proper investigation or proper proof of their claim. One thing that particularly distinguishes the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976-a good Act introduced and passed by the Fraser Government; nevertheless, it requires some amendment now in the light of experience-is that it made it necessary for any Aboriginal group wishing to claim land in the Territory to go before the Aboriginal Land Commissioner and to prove certain matters in relation to its claim. The Land Commissioner-there have been two commissioners; Mr Justice Toohey and Mr Justice Kearney-then produces a book, a public document, in which he sets out his findings and a Government Minister then makes a decision on the issue of land. The people who think that the issue of land has been done either frivolously or lightly should read one of the reports from the land commissioner to understand the amount of detail and the amount of proof that is required in order to substantiate a claim. This report on the Nicholson River area is typical of other reports. The report is in great detail. The Land Commissioner sets out the evidence, the areas of detriment and all the factors he has taken into account. The Commissioner has recommended at page 61 of the report that there be a grant of all the land in the Nicholson River area to a single Aboriginal land trust for the benefit of Aboriginals. He then sets out in great detail the various detriments he is required to consider in relation to the claim. He identifies no detriments likely to result to adjoining pastoralists, no detriments likely to occur to mining interests, and so on. I do not pretend that the Land Rights Act is perfect. In fact, when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs we had long negotiations. We had the agreement of the Northern Land Council to a number of amendments that were required. However, we could not get the Central Land Council to agree. It is a pity because that very good Act of 1976 will be strengthened with amendments. It is now the policy of the Opposition that certain amendments to the Land Rights Act should occur in the light of our experience. I recommend that anyone who has doubts about the land grant process or about the rights of Aboriginals to claim land should read one of these reports. The Commissioners take their jobs very seriously. Both Mr Justice Toohey and the present Land Commissioner, Mr Justice William Kearney, take their jobs very seriously. These reports set out all the proof that has been necessary for Aboriginal people to establish traditional association, to establish that the people making the claim are in fact the traditional owners or their descendants, and set out evidence that all the other conditions of a claim are satisfied. I know some small part of the area involved, although not nearly as much as does my colleague Senator Kilgariff. I notice that this area, which is part of the Gulf, is in fact unalienated land and that the granting of this land claim, if that is the decision of the Government, will involve detriment to no present landholder. In taking note of the report, I ask that those people who wish to criticise the granting of land should read one of these reports before they make their next criticism. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Primmer) agreed to: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: The adequacy of quarantine and other control measures in the Torres Strait area to protect Australia's rural industries from the introduction and spread of exotic livestock and plant diseases. Assent reported. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole, and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.48) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- WOOL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972. The Bill makes provision for the apportionment of wool tax receipts, imposed by the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1-5) 1964, among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation, that is wool promotion and market administration expenses. The Bill also makes provision for greater flexibility in the apportionment among the end uses through regulations being made to vary such apportionment. The apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1-5) 1964 are more appropriately contained in the Wool Industry Act 1972. Accordingly the complementary Wool Tax (Nos 1-5) Amendment Bills provide for the removal of the apportionment provisions. At present the five Wool Tax Acts and Regulations provide for a levy on woolgrowers of 8 per cent of the sale value of shorn wool. Receipts from the wool tax are apportioned under the Wool Tax Acts and associated Regulations as follows. Five per cent is allocated by the Wool Tax Acts to the Australian Wool Corporation for market support. The remaining three per cent is allocated under the Wool Tax Regulations as 2.5 per cent to wool promotion and market administration expenses and 0.5 per cent to research. The Wool Tax Acts provide for the Wool Council of Australia to make recommendations to the Minister with respect to variations in apportionment to promotion and research. The Council is seeking the flexibility to be able to vary the wool market support component of tax receipts between four and five percentage points and to make corresponding variations in the allocations to wool promotion and research. In the short run the Council is particularly concerned that the depreciation of the $A against a range of international currencies could result in an increased contribution to the International Wool Secretariat Budget of the Australian Wool Corporation of up to $25 million in 1985-86. Hence it is important to have this amending legislation in place before the 1985-86 selling season to allow regulations to be made varying the apportionment to wool promotion as recommended by the Wool Council of Australia. Wool is sold in an extremely competitive and fashion conscious market and in the longer term we need to ensure that it is not disadvantaged in any way in competing with other fibres. The wool industry's continued growth and prosperity depend very much on meeting the demanding marketing challenges of the world textile market and financial support of the International Wool Secretariat's promotional activity is vital. The Government recognises the marketing challenges which face the industry. Last year it introduced arrangements setting the Government contribution to wool promotion at 1.2 per cent of the gross value of wool sales for each of the five years to 1988-89 subject to the wool industry at least maintaining its present level of funding for promotion. The increased flexibility sought in this Bill would enable the wool industry to compete more effectively in promoting wool by directing additional funds to promotion when necessary. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. This Bill and the complementary Wool Tax Act Amending Bills are essentially procedural amendments facilitating the variation in apportionment of industry funds. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 1) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool sold by a wool-broker. The Act also provides for the apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill is one of 5 Wool Tax Amendment Bills, each dealing with a different method of selling shorn wool, to give effect to the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1-5) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speech on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 2) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool purchased by a registered wool-dealer from a person other than a wool-broker. The Act also provides for an apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 3) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 3) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool purchased by a manufacturer from a person other than a wool-broker or a registered wool dealer. The Act also provides for an apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 3) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 4) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 4) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool subjected by a manufacturer to a process of manufacture. The Act also provides for an apportionment of such tax receipts among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. The Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 4) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. WOOL TAX (No. 5) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wool Tax Act (No. 5) 1964. At present the Act provides for the imposition of a tax on shorn wool exported from Australia among market support, wool research and the general purposes of the Australian Wool Corporation. This Bill provides for the removal of the apportionment provisions of the Wool Tax Act (No. 5) 1964. The apportionment provisions are being incorporated in the Wool Industry Act 1972. I have already outlined the background to this amendment in my second reading speeches on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1985 and on the Wool Tax (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1985. The Bill involves no additional financial cost to the Government. I commend this Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.49) —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- This Bill is an omnibus Bill which amends 19 Acts. It contains measures which are designed to improve efficiency in the administration of Commonwealth programs and to improve the quality of services delivered by the Commonwealth. It also contains a number of amendments of a law revision kind which update and simplify legislation and remove minor anomalies and deficiencies. These developments will have no significant costs, and many will result in some administrative savings to the Commmonwealth. I now turn to the major measures in the Bill. COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) ACT 1971 Three important changes will be made to the legislation covering worker's compensation for Commonwealth employees. First, compensation cover will be extended to ordinary recesses and authorised absences from employment. In addition, journeys to or from employment during such recesses and absences will be covered. The Government considers that the Commonwealth should be responsible for the welfare of its employees in such situations, which are closely related to their employment. Second, the Act will be amended to provide that if an employee who is partially incapacitated for work has taken all reasonable steps to obtain work but has failed to do so he or she will be paid compensation as if totally incapacitated for work. This amendment is intended to ensure that a complete exposition will be found in the Act of the circumstances in which an employee who is partially incapacitated for work will be entitled to compensation as if he or she were totally incapacitated for work. Third, lump sum compensation will now be payable to employees who suffer injuries which result in partial loss of the genitals or, in the case of female employees, the loss of one or both breasts. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1947 Some significant amendments will be made to the Social Security Act 1947. First, the Act will be amended to consolidate and rationalise the rules which treat a child as a dependent child of a person. The new rules clarify that if a person looks after a child without having legal custody, the child can still be regarded as a dependent child of the person for the purposes of additional pension or benefit, or family allowance. Second, the Bill will facilitate the implementation of the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, for which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has responsibility. The objective of this scheme is to create new employment opportunities by providing non-means tested income support and training to those unemployed persons who have the capacity to establish a small business. The Bill will exclude NEIS payments from the current income test for social security pensions or benefits. Instead, the amount of a NEIS payment will be deducted from a pension or benefit on a dollar-for-dollar basis to avoid dual income security payments. The reason for this treatment is that receipt of a NEIS payment will not, of itself, exclude a person from a social security income security payment. Of course, a person who is participating in NEIS will not qualify for unemployment benefit as he or she will not be unemployed. Third, the Bill provides that persons charged with major offences under the Social Security Act shall be tried by summary proceedings. In doing so, it implements a recommendation of the 'Redlich Report'. Fourth, the Bill precludes payment of pensions and benefits to mentally ill persons who are confined without being convicted of an offence. The Act will treat such persons in the same way as a person who is imprisoned in connection with his or her conviction for an offence. Finally, the Bill makes a large number of amendments of a law revision kind which will clarify the operation of the Act, and remove a number of anomalies. CHILD CARE ACT 1972 The Child Care Act 1972 has not been substantially revised since its inception. The Bill will update the Act, and simplify and clarify its operation. In addition, a legislative base will be provided for Commonwealth-State agreements which relate to grants to the States for the development of child care centres. A number of aspects of the Children's Services Program will also be brought within the Act, to provide a specific legislative base for them. I will mention three of them. First, the Act currently enables the Commonwealth to fund centres only in respect of pre-school aged children who attend the centre on a regular basis. Children who do not fall within this category, such as children of school age and children who attend on an occasional basis, have instead attracted funding under the Children's Services Program. This has led to administrative complexity, as a single child care centre has often received funding from two sources. The Act will be amended to insert a specific provision by which a child care centre can be funded in respect of school age children and occasional attendances, provided that the main type of care provided by the centre is regular care for pre-school aged children. Second, the Act will enable the Commonwealth to approve grants towards the salary or wages of a person who is employed to make a new child care centre operational. Such grants are made for a period of up to 6 weeks prior to the opening of a centre, and are designed to ensure that it gets off to a good start. Third, the Act will specifically deal with the provision of grants to child care centres which provide free relief for children who are in economic need. REPATRIATION LEGISLATION I move now to amendments of a number of Acts relating to Repatriation matters. In general, the changes are designed to correct minor drafting errors in the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984. That Act provides for a new system for determining Repatriation pensions, with effect from 1 January 1985. The Bill ensures that claimants who had a right of appeal under the previous system will have a right of review in the new system. It will also clarify the jurisdictions of the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to ensure that all outstanding appeals from the previous system are dealt with by the new review bodies. Further, the Bill clarifies that where a determination which relates to an existing entitlement to pension is reviewed, and the Repatriation Commission varies that determination, there is a right of external review. In addition, the Bill modifies arrangements for persons whose dual entitlement to a repatriation service pension and a social security pension has been ''saved'' since 1973, when dual entitlement was abolished. The rate of the person's ''saved'' pension will be frozen at the rate of payment being made immediately before the commencement of the assets test, and it will be regarded as ''income'' in calculating the rate of the person's other pension. NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953 The Bill amends provisions of the National Health Act 1953 concerning nursing care arrangements. It will make minor changes to legislation which was passed last year, but has not yet been proclaimed, which enables the Commonwealth to pay nursing home benefits for patients who are temporarily absent from nursing homes. The changes will also facilitate the admission to nursing homes of respite care patients who take the places of patients who are temporarily absent. The opportunity has been taken to amend the law to ensure that, for the purpose of charging fees to nursing home patients, the day of admission and the day of discharge will be counted together as one day. This amendment will ensure that nursing home proprietors who charge fees for the day of discharge or death of a patient do not charge for the day of admission. OTHER MEASURES Two minor changes will be made to a number of other Acts which deal with Commonwealth subsidies. The first of these will enable terms and conditions accepted by an organisation which receives a subsidy to be varied by subsequent agreement between the Commonwealth and the organisation. This measure will apply to organisations which receive subsidies under- the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954; the Aged or Disabled Persons Hostels Act 1972; the Child Care Act 1972; the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970; the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974; and the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1974. The second change will improve arrangements by which the Commonwealth can approve the transfer of subsidised property to a new organisation and transfer the original organisation's obligations to the new organisation. This measure will apply in relation to property subsidised under the Acts which I have just mentioned, apart from the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970. Mr President, the measures contained in this Bill will improve the efficiency of administration of a number of Commonwealth programs, and will remove a number of anomalies and deficiencies from welfare legislation. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.50) —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- Honourable senators will be aware that the dispute involving members of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) in Queensland and the Queensland Government, through the South East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB), has reached serious proportions. This dispute poses grave implications not only for Queensland, but for the nation as a whole. As I will outline later, the Queensland Government has shown itself totally unwilling to seek a rational basis for satisfactory resolution of this dispute. It has been left to the Federal Government to act to restore some sanity in this matter and to take measures which will both address in a reasonable way the issues at the heart of the dispute, and will help to achieve the principal objective of a guaranteed, stable supply of electricity to Queensland. The Queensland Government has abrogated its responsibility in these areas. The original matters in dispute in the Queensland power industry have long been lost sight of as the Queensland Government has eagerly seized on the dispute as a means of mounting a savage attack on the union movement and on the Federal Government. The Queensland Government's handling of this dispute, their attitude to the State Industrial Commission, use of legislative powers to override basic industrial and democratic rights and total refusal to enter into any discussions are, taken together, unprecedented in Australia's industrial relations history. These actions have sought to overthrow established and respected industrial relations practices. The independent processes of conciliation and arbitration have been rejected in favour of a policy of unilateral legislative action to change term and conditions of employment which were previously agreed by the Queensland Government and to impose sanctions on those who breach the provisions of this legislation. These actions have gone far beyond what is necessary to ensure stable electricity supplies to the State of Queensland. The Queensland Government has repeatedly rejected calls by this Government to enter into discussions with it, the ACTU and the other parties involved in the dispute. We have offered to convene such discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation of the central issues involved. An essential part of that process of negotiations was that the ACTU, and all its affiliates, would call off all industrial action against Queensland. In addition, the ACTU would ensure that dispute settlement procedures were put in place which would effectively guarantee a stable and continuous supply of electricity to Queensland consumers. These initiatives have been rejected out of hand by the Queensland Government. As the Queensland Premier has himself admitted, he is more interested in prolonging this dispute as a means of attacking the Hawke Government than in achieving a resolution of the issues involved. The Queensland Premier is intent on pursuing this absurd course regardless of the cost to Queensland or the nation. The Queensland people have every reason to demand an explanation from the Premier of his motives in this matter. Not surprisingly, the union movement has reacted strongly to these moves by the Queensland Government. The Queensland trade unions movement and the ACTU imposed a prolonged transport blockade affecting road, rail, sea and air transport to and from Queensland. In addition, industrial action was taken or threatened in the building, brewing, communications and mining industries, as well as wide-ranging action against a number of individual companies. The implications of this campaign spread well beyond Queensland and threatened serious damage both to national economic recovery and to our international trading situation. From the outset, the Government has expressed its strong opposition to this industrial campaign and called on the unions to seek other means of resolving the dispute. The Government has said many times, and I repeat it again today: it does not, and cannot, condone wilful industrial action which causes widespread hardship to innocent Australians. Unions operating in essential services, in particular, have an obligation to prevent unnecessary interruption to such services and to exercise their democratic right to strike only in the most exceptional circumstances. The unions involved in the initial dispute have not been beyond blame. Indeed, by rejecting an order from the Queensland State Industrial Commission directed at resolving the dispute, the unions involved help lay the groundwork for subsequent moves by the Queensland Government. Mr President, the situation in Queensland has now become a matter of the deepest concern for all Australians. The Queensland Government has, by its actions, created a potentially very dangerous state of affairs with implications spreading right across the nation. By rejecting every opportunity to achieve a rational and reasonable resolution to this matter, the Queensland Government is placing at risk the successful economic and industrial situation which this Government has worked hard to achieve-with outstanding results-over the last two years. In these circumstances, the Federal Government has no option but to act, and to act decisively to bring this matter to resolution. In the first place, the Federal Government must act to prevent further severe economic and industrial damage which a continuation of the dispute would undoubtedly cause. Further, the Federal Government is obliged to intervene to protect the long-established and respected processes of conciliation and arbitration by independent tribunals through which such disputes have been traditionally resolved in this country. The contempt shown by the Queensland Government towards these processes threatens to undermine the very basis of industrial stability in this country. In taking this action, the Government totally repudiates the approach advocated by the Federal Opposition which has called for the further application of sanctions against unions taking industrial action-in the form of the use of the Trade Practices Act and reintroduction of the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. It has been just this kind of heavy-handed action which has brought about the current situation which the Bill attempts to remedy. Adoption of the Opposition approach would certainly ensure a major nationwide industrial confrontation, greater than anything seen in this country since the 1890's. This Government is not about to embark on such a potentially disastrous course of action. At this stage, Mr President, I would like to remind honourable senators of the background to this dispute. It is important to do this so that the Senate will have the necessary basis to judge whether the Queensland Government has been really concerned about the resolution of this matter. This dispute developed from a long-standing disagreement between power unions and SEQEB over the use of contract labour by the Authority. Late in 1984, bans were placed by the union on work performed by contractors. These bans were the subject of proceedings in the State Industrial Commission which directed the SEQEB to reinstate ETU members stood down as a result of the bans, and to withdraw contractors from two of the four projects on which they were engaged. The Commission also directed the ETU members to return to work, which they did, the next day. Negotiations over the use of contractors failed, and bans were reimposed in January this year. These bans were lifted at the direction of the Commission, following violent storms in Queensland, but overtime bans were reimposed by the union at the beginning of February. As a result, workers were stood down and others walked off the job in protest at these stand-downs. By 8 February, 1,500 workers were either on strike or stood down. A deadline to accept another SIC recommendation and return to work expired that day and 920 workers who remained on strike were dismissed by the SEQEB a couple of days later. Further industrial action by other electricity unions followed these dismissals and major industrial confrontation occurred leading to widespread blackouts in the State. Eventually, operators employed at the power stations were convinced to lift their bans, and the Queensland Government put an unrealistic 'peace offer' to the dismissed linesmen. Not surprisingly, the offer of a return to work under new terms, specifically an increase in working hours, a loss of entitlements, and a commitment to no further strikes, was rejected. The matter was still in the hands of the State Industrial Commission which recommended a return to work on existing conditions with a lifting of bans and a concurrent withdrawal of dismissal notices, together with urgent talks over the contract labour dispute. Although the unions agreed, the Queensland Government would not accept two recommendations to this effect and, in what can only be described as utter contempt for the State Industrial Commission, used emergency powers to change conditions of employment, and then removed the matter of the power dispute from the Commission's jurisdiction by forcing legislation through the Queensland Parliament, in a matter of hours. The Premier's express criticism of the Commission prompted its President to convene a public sitting to defend his Commission against this unwarranted attack. In his statement at that sitting on March 5, the President pointed out that-far from giving the unions everything they wanted, as had been alleged by the Premier-the most significant industrial gains achieved by union members employed by the electricity board resulted from direct negotiation between the unions and employers, with the approval of the Government. The attack on the State Industrial Commission was, however, only one of an array of weapons which the Queensland Government chose to deploy in its response to this dispute. All Honourable Senators will be aware of the five pieces of legislation hastily introduced in Queensland which have, among other things: given the Electricity Commissioner unprecedented power to direct any person to carry out work at pain of penalties; removed the right to strike in the electricity industry and imposed penalties on any person undertaking strike action without any avenue of appeal against such penalties to an independent body; overthrown award terms and conditions of employment; removed the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission over matters involved in the electricity industry to a new tribunal with restricted jurisdiction; provided wide powers of arrest for use against peaceful picketing; and inserted new evidentiary provisions to facilitate prosecutions under the legislation. Not only is this legislation an attack on basic industrial and democratic rights, but it is also patently in breach of important international obligations undertaken by this country. This is a matter of serious concern to this Government and the Queensland Government has been requested to take action to remedy this situation. It is obvious that the Queensland Government, in pursuing this battery of measures, has gone far past what was necessary to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the problems of stable and continuous electricity supply for Queensland. The end result of the actions of the Queensland Government, Mr President, is that there is now no avenue available within Queensland which will permit the issues central to this dispute-the reinstatement of the sacked linesmen and a return to original working conditions-to be considered. It cannot be over-emphasised that there will be no lasting resolution of this dispute until these issues have been properly addressed. The absolute refusal of the Queensland Government to consider these issues will not resolve the dispute. There is obviously a clear need to redress the balance by getting the parties together before an independent authority which will give the unions the opportunity to make out their case on all the elements still in dispute. Such is the legislation that the Queensland Government has passed that the only means by which this can be achieved is for the unions to turn to the Federal system of conciliation and arbitration. This they have already done or are in the process of doing. The ETU has already instigated proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to secure a Federal award for its members, and other unions have either instigated or foreshadowed a similar course of action. This Government has intervened in the Commission proceedings involving the ETU to support the making of a Federal award. A Full Bench of the Commission has recently confirmed Commissioner Brown's finding of a dispute in this matter. In the view of the Federal Government, proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provide the proper approach whereby all the arguments may be fully argued and properly assessed and a fair resolution sought. There is, however, the very real problem that these proceedings could be lengthy and could be subject to many delaying tactics by the Queensland Government seeking to obstruct at every opportunity the making of a Federal award to cover the electricity industry. During this time, it would be most likely that the current industrial configuration would continue and the costs to the nation would be immense. It is to overcome these problems and to facilitate the processes of making a Federal award that the Federal Government has decided to introduce this Bill. The proposals in this Bill were put to the ACTU on the basis that all industrial action, both outside and within Queensland, be lifted, that the electricity unions give a commitment to a defined disputes settling procedure designed to ensure a continuous stable supply of electricity to Queensland consumers, and that there be no victimisation of current SEQEB employers. These conditions were fully accepted by the ACTU. The measures proposed in this Bill are restrained but eminently practical in seeking a permanent resolution. Honourable senators will note that the Bill is strictly confined to disputes in the Queensland electricity industry, including the ETU dispute and other disputes which may occur in the Federal jurisdiction following the over-reaction of the Queensland Government to the original power dispute. The Bill is not an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is a discrete piece of legislation designed to facilitate the restoration of an ordered relationship between employing bodies in the Queensland electricity industry and the unions concerned. Honourable senators will note that the Bill contains a 'sunset clause'. So, it is a piece of legislation designed for this purpose only and should not be seen as having any wider implications for the system of prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in this country. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. The Bill is designed to facilitate the movement by the unions in the Queensland electricity industry from the now unsatisfactory State jurisdiction to that of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The federal Commission is, of course, not subject to the same extraordinary limitations as have been imposed by the Queensland Government first on the State Industrial Commission and subsequently on the new State body, the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Tribunal, which was established to replace the State Industrial Commission in this area. The federal Commission is able to deal with all important elements of the terms and conditions of employment of workers in the electricity industry, including hours of work and preference which cannot be dealt with by the Queensland tribunal. This is more likely to promote a resolution of the current dispute involving the ETU and any further disputes in the State electricity industry than the arbitrary imposition of conditions of work. Clause 9 is central to the operation of the Bill. It requires that any industrial dispute to which the Bill applies be dealt with by a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This will speed up the processes of dispute resolution by eliminating appeals which could be made from decisions of a single member of the Commission in relation to such matters as the finding of an industrial dispute and the making of an award. A Full Bench has recently upheld Commissioner Brown's finding of a dispute in the matter involving the ETU. After the Bill commences, a Full Bench will become responsible for dealing with the dispute. Moreover, in future, a Full Bench will be responsible for deciding whether a dispute exists in other matters coming forward in which Queensland electricity authorities are involved. Clause 9 will not prevent any member of the Commission who is hearing a matter which comes within the Bill from being a member of the Full Bench which is required to deal with that matter. Clause 9 also permits a Full Bench to direct any member of the Commission to endeavour to settle a dispute which is before the Full Bench by conciliation, or to enquire into any matter involved in such a dispute. In either case, the member concerned must report to the Full Bench on the matter. It should be noted that the Bill requires a Full Bench to certify any agreement or make any consent award or order which may be settled upon in such conciliation proceedings. These powers of direction are intended to give the Commission a measure of flexibility in dealing with matters coming within the Bill. Clause 9 also provides that, where a Full Bench considers it appropriate to hear and determine so much of an industrial dispute as relates to Queensland electricity authorities separately from any other part of the dispute, the Full Bench will be able to make a declaration to that effect. Thereafter, the part of the dispute not involving such authorities will be dealt with under the normal processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clause 8 is a second critical provision of the Bill. Because of the special circumstances of the conflict in Queensland, a discretion normally available to the Commission will be removed by the Bill. Clause 8 provides that, when dealing with an industrial dispute to which the Bill applies, in so far as the dispute involves Queensland electricity authorities, the Commission is not to be able to dismiss or refrain from hearing the dispute on the ground that the dispute could be dealt with by a Queensland industrial tribunal or that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest. The Government does not believe that the Queensland Government or its electricity authorities should be able to delay the proceedings before the Commission by arguing for the exercise of this discretion, particularly in the light of that Government's demonstrated disregard for the independence of its own industrial tribunals. Quite simply, we have been forced to conclude that it is overwhelmingly in the public interest that the Queensland elements of disputes in the electricity industry be brought without delay into the Federal jurisdiction. In removing the section 41 (1) (d) discretion, we have been careful to confine that removal to such aspects of a dispute as affect the Queensland electricity industry. Other parties involved in relevant interstate industrial disputes will still be able to seek the exercise of the discretion, if they wish. Clause 8 makes it clear that the Commission will be able to limit the application of an award relating to employees of a Queensland electricity authority to such employees as the Commission thinks appropriate. The Commission will be required to have regard to work that is or could be performed for that authority by members of the organisation of employees involved in the dispute and by members of other federally or State-registered unions. This provision is designed to avoid any demarcation difficulties which might occur in the changeover from State to federal jurisdiction. Thus, the Bill is limited as far as possible to the special circumstances relating to the Queensland electricity industry. Clause 6 provides that the processes under the Bill are to apply not only to the current industrial dispute involving the Electrical Trades Union and Queensland electricity authorities, but also to other industrial disputes involving Queensland electricity authorities and federally registered trade unions where those unions are prescribed by regulations made pursuant to this legislation. It is intended that unions will be prescribed only where the Government is satisfied that they are not seeking to encroach on the membership of State registered unions against the wishes of such bodies. This is particularly necessary in the light of the removal of the discretion under section 41 (1) (d). Clause 6 is also framed so that the Bill will apply primarily to disputes which could result in the making of federal awards for the first time in the relevant area of employment by such authorities. However, the situation in Queensland may require these speedier processes to operate in relation to a dispute involving the State electricity authorities, even where Federal award coverage of their employees exists. Accordingly, provision has been made in Clause 6 to allow the Act to be declared to operate in relation to disputes in such cases. There is another element of the Bill to which I wish to draw attention. Relevant terms are defined in Clause 4. The definitions of 'authority' and 'electricity authority' make it clear that the Bill will apply not only to relevant statutory authorities in the electricity industry, but also to government departments engaged in the generation and distribution of electrical power. Similarly the term 'electricity authority' extends to contractors who carry out work other than as employees in that industry for or on behalf of an authority. In other words, claims for Federal awards in relation to employees of such contractors could come within the Bill. This broad definition is intended to give the Bill a wide operation in relation to arrangements for the Queensland electricity industry. Honourable senators should also note that under Clause 7, the Commission is required to act expeditiously under the Bill. This provision is included for emphasis, not because the Government has any doubt about the Commission's readiness to act in such a way when the circumstances, as is the case here, indicate such an approach is necessary and desirable. Finally, Mr President, I draw attention to Clause 11. As I have already indicated, the legislation is to operate for a limited period. It is to be in force for three years after it commences operation, unless an earlier date is proclaimed. This provision is included because of the special and limited nature of the Bill. In conclusion, Mr President, let me stress that this Bill provides an opportunity for the issues at the heart of this dispute to be substantially addressed and for the dispute to be resolved sensibly in the interests of the community as a whole. Presently, major impediments exist to the re-employment of workers dismissed by the SEQEB. These include the legislative imposition of increased hours of work, requirements to sign a no-strike contract, and abolition of union preference and requirements to declare the names of workmates who supposedly instigated industrial action. By allowing a substantial return to the terms and conditions which previously applied to employees of the SEQEB, we believe that these impediments will be removed and the prospects for the re-employment of many of the workers considerably improved. Since there is no constitutional power for the Commonwealth to do so, this Bill does not seek to directly provide for reinstatement of the dismissed SEQEB employees. Nevertheless, the Government believes that the processes provided by this Bill will enable this issue to be constructively dealt with in proceedings before the Commission. Mr President, the Government has put forward a totally constructive course of action designed to resolve this matter. We have been driven to take these steps by uncompromising obstinacy of the Queensland Government. The ACTU has already told the Queensland Government that it will co-operate in formulating a new approach to handling disputes in the electricity industry. The opportunity has been provided for the Queensland Government to co-operate in achieving a lasting and equitable solution to this difficult problem. Failure on their part to do so will be a clear sign that the Queensland Government is not acting in the best interests of the Queensland community. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Repre- sentatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.52) —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 this Bill is to provide Parliamentary approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a new Rural Adjustment Scheme. The details of the Scheme are set out in the agreement which is contained in a schedule to the Bill and in a schedule to the Agreement. Assistance for rural adjustment has been provided by the Commonwealth since the early 1970s. The Rural Adjustment Scheme operates on a lender of last resort basis and is an important mechanism for facilitating the adjustment process in Australian rural industries. It is particularly relevant today when a number of rural industries are suffering the effects of changed market circumstances and increasing cost pressures. Industries such as the sugar industry, the dairy industry and the grape industry are currently undergoing significant change and the Rural Adjustment Scheme is assisting this process. While providing the same forms of assistance as have been available in the past the new Scheme, which with the co-operation of the States will commence operation on 1 July 1985, will be different in a number of respects. The new Scheme has been developed in the light of the Industries Assistance Commission's (IAC) report on rural adjustment in March 1984. The IAC found a number of deficiencies in the present Scheme, which has operated since 1 January 1977. The IAC had difficulty in determining the effectiveness of the Rural Adjustment Scheme but on balance considered that such a facility should be retained although the Scheme should only be invoked for particular industries or regions in trouble as determined after independent public enquiry. Following consideration of the IAC report, the Government agreed that the Rural Adjustment Scheme be maintained as a continuing and generally available Scheme but that Parts A and B be funded by borrowings with Government assistance provided through an interest rate subsidy. It was agreed that Part C of the Scheme, which is essentially welfare assistance for primary producers assessed as having no long term prospects of viability, continue to be funded from the Commonwealth Budget. An important determinant in the Government's decision to change the funding arrangements for the Rural Adjustment Scheme is to move to a system where the benefits of the Scheme are more transparent. Under the present arrangements, the Commonwealth provides funds to the States and the Northern Territory over a long term and under highly concessional terms and conditions. In addition, only 85% of these funds are repayable by the State. The IAC observed that the full concession was not being passed on to farmers. Most States were charging a considerably higher rate of interest and lending the money over a shorter term than applied for the loans from the Commonwealth to the State. This has resulted in the States generating surpluses under the Scheme which have amounted to millions of dollars. Some States have a policy of recovering these surpluses to Consolidated Revenue Funds where they are effectively lost to the rural industries. The Government is appalled at this situation, particularly as some rural industries could benefit greatly from access to those funds at the time when they are suffering enormous adjustment pressures. The new arrangements are designed to ensure that this situation does not arise under a new Scheme. The assistance provided by the Government, in the form of an interest rate subsidy for eligible farmers, will be much more visible and the benefits will be passed on to farmers. The deficiencies identified by the IAC have been addressed in the administration arrangements for the new Scheme. It will be closely monitored and an annual report will be presented to Parliament on the Scheme's operation so that it will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and full public disclosure. The report will seek to demonstrate how the Scheme operates and how assistance has been used. The new arrangements have been the subject of extensive consultations between Commonwealth and State officials. Formal meetings have been held in July 1984 and in February, March and April 1985. The details were discussed at a Commonwealth/State and Northern Territory Ministerial meeting on 24 April 1985. In addition, discussions have been held individually with State rural adjustment authorities. As a result of these discussions extensive modifications have been made to earlier drafts of the Agreement in an attempt to meet States' and the Northern Territory's views. However, it has been made clear that the basic elements of the Scheme could not be altered. That is, that assistance will be provided by way of an interest rate subsidy on borrowings under the Scheme and that bad debts will be shared equally between the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory up to a certain level. The Commonwealth will meet all bad debts in excess of that level. The Commonwealth will also contribute towards administration costs by paying the equivalent of 1 per cent of average outstanding loans for Parts A and B and 2 per cent of the assistance provided under Part C. The new arrangements should provide adequate flexibility for administration and be an effective means of providing adjustment assistance for rural industries. Under the terms of the new Rural Adjustment Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and Northern Territory, the Scheme will continue to be administered by State and Northern Territory rural adjustment authorities. There will be two options available for providing adjustment assistance. States and the Northern Territory may borrow funds to operate the Scheme or they may provide the assistance through an interest rate concession on loans arranged through normal commercial channels. While the 50 per cent subsidy which the Commonwealth provides in respect of a year's borrowing will be made available each year for seven years, for Part A assistance, in respect of each individual the amount of assistance and the period for which it is provided, (which of course may extend beyond seven years) is a matter for the State adjustment authorities to determine. There will be a strong emphasis under the Scheme on returning assisted farmers to commercial credit as soon as circumstances permit. The Rural Adjustment Scheme is a viability based Scheme. Its objective is to return to commercial viability those farms and farmers assessed as having sound prospects of commercial viability in the longer term. The Scheme also provides for farmers assessed as having no prospects of long term commercial viability assistance to leave the industry. Part A of the Scheme will provide for assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement. Debt reconstruction assistance is designed to help the applicant whose prospects are sound but who is unable to obtain finance to carry on and is thus in danger of losing his property or other assets. The assistance may provide for a rearrangement or composition of debts to allow more time for payment. Money may be advanced for repayment of all or part of the debts and for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development. The farm build-up provisions are designed to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under current conditions. Assistance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property to enable him to buy adjoining land to build up his property, or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. The farm improvement provisions are designed to improve the effective use of an existing farm without increasing its area by a program of development to improve the economic viability of the farm. Assistance for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement will take the form of loans on such terms and conditions, including interest rate, as the State authority considers appropriate or by an interest subsidy on loans through normal commercial sources. In the latter case the State will need to satisfy itself that the loan is appropriate for the individual and the type of assistance sought. There are occasions when a particular rural industry encounters a severe market downturn or similar eventuality and assistance is required to enable some producers in that industry to carry-on pending the recovery of the industry's fortunes. If such assistance is not available many producers experience permanent financial damage and the country's productive capacity suffers along with the individual. The Rural Adjustment Scheme therefore includes a standing facility under Part B to enable assistance to be made available for essential carry-on purposes in times of severe market downturn or similar situation (but excluding circumstances covered by natural disaster arrangements) in those rural industries where the Commonwealth and States agree from time to time that it is necessary. The Commonwealth and the State will share the cost of that assistance and will agree on the terms and conditions of the assistance to be provided in particular circumstances. The facility will be activated by notice to that effect in the Commonwealth Gazette. In making its assessment of the applicant, the State administering authority will have regard to the farmer's asset structure and will make its assessment on the assumption of a market recovery to the long term trend. The applicant must also be in a position where he is unable to obtain carry-on finance on reasonable terms from any other normal commercial source. Household support is designed to provide help for farmers who are judged to be non-viable and who have insufficient resources to meet living expenses and who are in need of assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship while the farmer considers whether to adjust out of farming. A farmer will be eligible for such assistance if he is assessed by the administering authority as being ineligible for Parts A and B assistance, does not have sound prospects of long term commercial viability and will suffer financial hardship if not assisted. A farmer cannot concurrently be in receipt of household and unemployment benefits. Assistance will be provided for a period of up to one year sufficient to raise the applicant's estimated future net income from all sources to the level of approximately that which would be applicable to him if he were eligible for unemployment benefits. In those cases where a demonstrable effort has been made to move out of farming an extension of a further two years may be allowed at the discretion of the administering authority. Prospective income for each period will be assessed by the authority on the basis of a declaration made by the applicant. Where it would take some time to assess an applicant's entitlement, interim assistance may be granted by the authority as a loan, provided there is prima facie evidence of urgent need and unavailability of alternative sources of finance. If the authority subsequently determines that the applicant has a viable enterprise, the interim assistance will be regarded as carry-on finance and would, of course, be repayable. At the end of the first period of twelve months, household support assistance received by a farmer may be converted to a grant. If the farmer adjusts out of farming within three years of the time he first received household support, any advances made to him and not already converted to a grant may be so converted. If he does not adjust out of farming within three years of first receiving assistance any advance made to him and not already converted to a grant will be repayable to the authority. A farmer who is prepared to adjust out of farming may receive rehabilitation assistance. Such assistance is provided at the discretion of the administering authority and may be converted to a grant also at the discretion of the authority. The authority must be satisfied that the applicant will suffer financial hardship if not assisted under this provision. The maximum loan will be $8,000 from 1 July 1985 but will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index. This loan may be converted to a grant at a subsequent time. Eligibility for rehabilitation assistance is not affected by the farmer having already received assistance under the household support provision. The financial assistance to be provided each year for debt reconstruction, farm build-up and farm improvement will be determined by the Commonwealth before the commencement of the financial year following consultation between Commonwealth and State Ministers. The amount to be made available by the Commonwealth to a State for the purposes of carry-on assistance will be determined at the time that the Commonwealth and the States agree that the provision of such assistance is warranted. Household support and rehabilitation will not be subject to prior allocation of funds; funds for these purposes will be provided by the Commonwealth. Under the new arrangements, the interest subsidy for Part A assistance in 1985-86 is estimated to be around $1.75m. This figure is expected to increase gradually over seven years to peak at around $12-13m. Under the present scheme, Part A assistance in 1984-85 approximated $30m in the form of loan funds to the States for eligible applicants. There is no Part B Scheme currently in operation. Part C assistance for 1984-85 under the present RAS will approximate $1.3m. Assistance under Part C of the new scheme is expected to exceed this amount in 1985-86. The Commonwealth's contribution for administration expenses in 1985-86 is expected to be $394,000. A number of minor amendments were made to the Bill by the Government in its passage through the House of Representatives. Sub-clause 3 (1) of the Schedule to the Bill was amended to provide for a Commonwealth contribution to State administration expenses for RAS assistance made on the basis of State borrowings or through normal commercial sources. Sub-paragraphs 6 (A) (ii) and 6 (B) (ii) were amended to enable the interest subsidy under the RAS to be paid on all loans through normal commercial sources, including existing loans. If left unamended sub-paragraphs 6 (A) (ii) and 6 (B) (ii) would require that the interest subsidy only be paid on new loans or existing loans which have been restructured. This could result in assisted persons incurring establishment or other costs and thereby receiving less assistance under the RAS than intended. Stylistic changes were also made to sub-paragraphs 6 (A) (i) and 6 (B) (i). I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.53) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1985 This is the first of two Bills being introduced concurrently which provide a legislative basis for decisions previously announced by the Government on the collection and disbursement of levy payments under the Bass Strait Equalization Scheme. The amendments are in the nature of technical adjustments and arise primarily from changes in assessed freight costs and the need to correct anomalies in the rules governing the pattern of disbursements following the introduction of a partial allocation scheme for Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January 1985 and the closure of the BP refinery at Westernport, Victoria during February 1985. The operation of the Freight Equalization Scheme, and the question of whether there should be any further change in the levy redistribution formula, will be further considered in light of the outcome of the Government's review of the desirability of accelerated movement toward a free market for indigenous crude oil. The purpose of this first Bill is to amend the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act 1984 to give effect to variations in the rate of adjustment levy imposed on unstabilised crude petroleum oil produced in the Gippsland Basin in Bass Strait and announced in Parliament on 27 February 1985. The amendments increase the adjustment levy to $1.39 per kilolitre from 1 January 1985 and to $1.96 per kilolitre from 1 March 1985 in line with changes in the assessed costs of coastal freight movements of Bass Strait crude oil and decisions announced by the Government last October on the proportion of these costs to be redistributed among refiners. In order to minimise the legislative burden which may arise from future variations in the levy rate, clause 5 of the Bill defines the per kilolitre adjustment levy as a fixed 65 per cent of the special freight allowance component of the import parity price of Bass Strait crude oil as determined from time to time by the Minister. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. The amount of revenue raised through the adjustment levy is disbursed to eligible companies in accordance with provisions of the Bass Strait Adjustment Trust Fund Act 1984. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. BASS STRAIT FREIGHT ADJUSTMENT TRUST FUND AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Amendment Bill is the second of two interrelated Bills which give effect to changes in the operation of the Bass Strait Coastal Freight Adjustment Scheme following the introduction of a partial allocation scheme for Bass Strait crude oil from 1 January 1985 and the closure in February 1985 of the BP refinery at Westernport in Victoria. This Bill amends the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Trust Fund Act in three substantive respects. Firstly, it provides for consequential amendments to the Act to harmonise its references to adjustment levy with the new rates of levy being introduced by parallel amendments of the Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act. Secondly, it provides for reimbursement to the producers of amounts of levy paid on domestic free market sales from 1 January 1985 when the partial allocation scheme came into operation. Thirdly, it introduces a new basis for calculating each refiner's share in monthly disbursements from the fund, designed to ensure that the new pattern of coastal movements of Bass Strait crude oil following the closure of the BP refinery at Westernport is reflected immediately in the pattern of disbursements. This is done by basing disbursements of levy collected after 1 March 1985 on the most recent six months' movements. This Bill also introduces several minor changes of a drafting nature. The legislation has no financial implications for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.54) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The principal purpose of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985 is to give effect to the government's decision to ensure the economical and efficient use of Australian Federal Police (AFP) personnel by the enactment of redeployment and retirement provisions directly comparable to those which apply to Commonwealth public servants under the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act 1979, (The CE (RR) Act). The Government's industrial relations policy requires the maintenance of a nexus between early voluntary retirement and management initiated retirement. The former was introduced into the AFP on 13 August 1984 following an amendment to regulations made under the Principal Act. The maximum retirement age for members of the AFP remains at 60. Existing Sections 38 and 39 of the Principal Act provide for the management initiated redeployment or retirement of AFP personnel, but they do so in a less comprehensible manner than provisions applying to Commonwealth employees under the CE (RR) Act. At present the grounds for redeployment or retirement action do not correspond to those applying to other Commonwealth employees; The terms used are not defined; and decisions are not subject to appeal. This Bill aims at consistency with other areas of Commonwealth employment and adapts the provisions of the CE (RR) Act only to the extent necessary to meet the special requirements of the AFP, which derive from its disciplined character, command structure, functions and operational requirements. These requirements make it inappropriate to include the AFP within the AMBIT of the CE (RR) Act. The amendments to existing sections 38 and 39 accord with recommendations made by the administrative review council (ARC) and, broadly, will: require the efficient and economic use of AFP staff; require the publication of administrative procedures; require that staff affected by management initiated redeployment or retirement decisions be notified; require that reasonable action be taken to redeploy a member by transfer within the AFP; and introduce a right of appeal against such decisions. The most significant departure in the Bill from the scheme of the CE (RR) Act is that the appeals board established to review decisions about the redeployment or retirement of AFP members is to be of recommendatory rather than determinative character. This departure was recommended by the ARC as a desirable means of ensuring the ultimate authority of the commissioner. The existing AFP promotion appeals board is of similar character, and the new appeals board will also consider promotion appeals. Unlike the CE(RR) Act, which contemplates the redeployment of public servants between departments, redeployment of AFP members under the Bill will be possible only within the AFP. In a further departure, the Bill includes provision, recommended by the ARC, that a member of the AFP should be permitted legal counsel before the appeals board. The opportunity has also been taken to make several other amendments to the AFP Act. The amendments are: to section 15 to clarify the powers of delegation of the Commissioner; to section 19 to take account of the appointment of two deputy commissioners; to section 24 to remove the requirement that the public service board be consulted on rank numbers; to sections 25, 26 and 35 to reflect the change from a rank-based organisation to a position-based organisation; to sections 25 and 26 to exclude members who are the subject of a redeployment declaration from normal transfer arrangements; and to sections 29 and 37 to take account of subsequent amendments. The purpose of the amendment to section 16 is to provide the Commissioner with all the powers of a secretary to a department under the Public Service Act. The powers will relate only to public servants who have either been appointed, or are employed, under the Public Service Act 1922 and who now work within the office of the Australian Federal Police attached to the Department of the Special Minister of State. The provision of those powers ensures that the Commissioner has full responsibility for and control over the administration and operation of the AFP and will clarify the rights of public service staff in the office of the AFP in relation to grievance and other appeal mechanisms. The purpose of the major amendment to section 40 is to enable the establishment of an ''appeals board'', which is to hear and determine appeals lodged by a member against the selection for promotion of another member and appeals against redeployment or retirement action, and to make recommendations to the Commissioner. Other amendments to section 40 will enable the making of regulations to enable the re-appointment to the AFP of a person who was retired on invalidity grounds but has regained good health, and to provide for pre-embarkation interviews for those members posted overseas. The amendment to section 68 of the Act, which provides for certification of a number of matters in relation to membership of the AFP, arises from a suggestion by the director of public prosecutions. It will assist in legal proceedings against persons who misrepresent themselves to be members of the AFP. While it is not possible at this stage to estimate the use likely to be made of the retirement provisions of the Bill, there is no reason to suppose that the financial implications are other than minimal. The Bill includes transitional provisions to ensure that delegations will continue to be effective and that promotion appeals lodged prior to the date of effect shall continue to be considered under the existing provisions. It also includes minor machinery provisions such as deletion from the CE(RR) Act of reference to the Commonwealth Police, and deletion of matters which were previously included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (No. 2) 1983 but which have not been proclaimed and are now superseded. I commend this Bill to the Senate. COMPLAINTS (AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE) AMENDMENT BILL 1985 The principal purpose of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985 is to clarify the procedures which govern internal investigations within the Australian Federal Police (AFP) so as to protect the rights of members of the force and to improve the operation of the procedures. The Bill is based upon recommendations put to the Government by the Australian Federal Police Association and addresses matters raised in the 1982-83 annual report of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Association made detailed submission to the Special Minister of State and to the then Attorney-General in 1984. It was principally concerned at what it considered the inadequacy of protection afforded members of the AFP under internal investigation, and at the possibility that its members might, in certain circumstances, be penalised twice for one offence. The protection afforded members under investigation (section 7 of the Principal Act) will be increased by an amendment which more closely defines the method of giving a direction that a question put by a member of the Internal Investigation Division must be answered, and which clarifies the focus of that direction. Under the new provisions a direction must be clearly identified as such, shall specify particulars of the complaint and, where practicable, shall be in writing. The possibility that a member of the AFP might be charged with both a criminal and a disciplinary offence as results of the same transaction is to be dealt with by an amendment now being made to the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations. The Regulations are also being amended to require the application of the criminal standard of proof-that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt-to all disciplinary offences. This change will contribute to the protection afforded members of the AFP who are under investigation. It is appropriate to mention these matters here since the amendments to the Principal Act and to the regulations constitute a single package of improvements. The Bill, which has no financial impact, includes an amendment suggested by the AFP extending the provisions for conciliation of complaints (section 19), and a number of amendments suggested by the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal (new section 11A, sections 67, 68, 69, 71 and 79) broadly, the purpose of those amendments is to: clarify the right of the Commissioner to withdraw proceedings; ensure that all parties affected by the Tribunal's decisions have an opportunity to be heard; allow extensions of time for appeals to the Tribunal; overcome practical difficulties in the issue of summonses to witnesses; and institute a right of appeal to the Federal Court on penalties imposed. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to broaden the charter of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 to allow the Commonwealth Development Bank to provide finance for all general business purposes and to provide equity financing and packages of equity and debt. These changes were decided upon following a review of the role of the Commonwealth Development Bank, particularly in regard to its ability to meet the funding requirements of small businesses. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) foreshadowed these amendments in his Press release of 29 April 1985 which announced a number of measures aimed at improving the access of small business to bank finance and the removal of all interest rate controls except in the housing area where the control on loans for owner-occupied housing of amounts less than $100,000 will remain. The package of measures that has been introduced is expected to improve significantly the availability of finance for small business, and is in accordance with earlier decisions the Government has made to promote a more efficient and dynamic financial sector. In deciding to remove these interest rate ceilings the Government accepted the generally agreed view that they have had the effect of discouraging bank lending to small business. This is in line with the findings of the review group on the Australian financial system-the Martin Group-and was supported in advice to the Government by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia and the Government's Small Business Council. The removal of these controls will enable banks to set interest rates to reflect the costs and risks involved in lending proposals. This should mean that small businesses will no longer have to tolerate a situation where the availability of finance through the banking system is rationed. Also, banks will be encouraged to introduce more flexible, innovative loan packages and to improve advisory services to small business. Turning to the Government's decisions in respect of the Commonwealth Development Bank, I would note the special role the bank has played in assisting small business over the last 25 years in its role as a lender of last recourse. This has seen the bank provide finance to businesses which would otherwise have been unable to obtain funds from banks on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. In the 1983-84 financial year, the bank approved loans totalling $270m to nearly 4,000 applicants and at 30 June 1984 had loans outstanding of $692m. In reviewing the role of the Development Bank the Government accepted the view of the Martin group that there would continue to be a specialist role for the Development Bank as a lender of last recourse and that the bank's activities should be on a fully commercial basis. It will be recalled that following the restructuring of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation last year, the CDB is now required to pay corporation tax. As I mentioned earlier, following the removal of interest-rate controls, it is expected that banks generally will be more prepared to increase finance and services to small businesses. As a consequence a higher proportion of the demand for CDB finance should be in the higher risk areas and for longer term loans, sought on the basis of projected income flows rather than security. In view of these considerations the Government has also decided that the charter of the Development Bank should be broadened so that the bank can provide finance to all businesses. This involves the removal of the present restriction on the bank's lending activities which limits the provision of finance to the establishment and development of businesses and for the purpose of primary production. Further, it has been agreed the bank should be able to offer more diverse forms of finance, including equity funding and packages of equity and debt. Consistent with the bank's lender of last recourse role, such funds are only to be provided where businesses are unable to obtain such funds from other sources on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. The bank's equity funding role will be subject to general policies approved by the Government. These decisions are also in line with the recommendations put to the Government by the Martin group. The Government intends to examine in two years time the effectiveness of the CDB under its wider charter as a financier of small business. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide the Commonwealth Development Bank with the requisite powers to carry out the broader range of activities I have outlined and which should be of considerable benefit to the small business sector. There are no significant costs, revenue or savings to the Government arising directly from the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to extend the operation of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy and the phosphate fertiliser subsidy schemes at current rates for a further 12 months until 30 June 1986. The two fertiliser assistance schemes were introduced in the mid-1960s as a means to stimulate agricultural production and have been extended with some modification on several occasions since that time. They were due to expire on 30 June 1985. In July 1984, the Government asked the Industries Assistance Commission to inquire into and report on whether assistance should be provided for the consumption and production of fertilisers in Australia and, if so, the nature, extent and the duration of such assistance. The Commission in an interim report submitted to the Government in March 1985, recommended against continuation of the current subsidies for consumption of nitrogenous and phosphatic fertilisers after 30 June 1985 and recommended that short term assistance be provided to local phosphatic fertiliser manufacturers. The Government has rejected these recommendations. In deciding to continue the fertiliser consumption subsidies for a further 12 months, the Government was particularly mindful of its request that the IAC consider in its final report: (a) The current levels of assistance to industries within the farm sector, relative to levels of assistance to other industries and the Government's commitment to maintain and improve the international competitiveness of Australian rural industries, and (b) The effectiveness of the nitrogenous and phosphatic fertiliser subsidies, or any other approaches which it considers would be appropriate, in assisting industries within the rural sector. The fertiliser subsidies are the single largest item of Commonwealth Government assistance to industries in the rural sector. In 1984-85 they are expected to cost the Commonwealth some $55.3m. Nevertheless, the overall level of assistance to rural industries is low by comparison with other sectors. A comparison of figures for 1981-82, the latest year for which comparable IAC figures are available, indicate that primary industry assistance is 9 per cent compared with 26 per cent for secondary industries. In recent discussions on farm costs the Government has agreed with the National Farmers Federation that the farm sector does suffer a cost impost arising from protection of secondary industry by tariffs, quotas and other mechanisms, and while there has not been agreement on the extent of this cost, impost it is in the order of $6,000 to $9,000 per farm each year. This is significant given that average income per unit of family farm labour in 1983-84 has been estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics at only $7,000 per year. The Government has been actively working on measures for industries in the rural sector which will maintain and enhance their productivity. Some changes have been necessary, an inevitable adjustment given the entrenched protective position into which some industries have withdrawn, but most important for their future efficiency and competitiveness. Our rural industries continue to provide about 40 per cent of export earnings, a most important contribution to the national economy and reason enough for the Government to maintain a reasonable balance between the assistance it provides respective sectors of industry and the community generally. There has been much debate on the effectiveness of the fertiliser consumption subsidies as an assistance measure for the rural sector and this is reflected in the Commission's interim report. Given the terms of reference the IAC has for this inquiry, the Government expects to be in a better position to consider the options including their continuation or their replacement by other measures following receipt of the final report which is due in October. The subsidy rates to continue in 1985-86 will be paid at the rate of $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen and $12 per tonne of single strength superphosphate or $138 per tonne on the available phosphorus content of other phosphatic fertilisers. The measure is expected to cost the Government about $55m in 1985-86. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(3.57) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to implement a number of recent government decisions in relation to the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit the broadcasting of a matter. The proposed amendments may be summarised as follows: In relation to the miscellaneous amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Bill will address four issues. These are: Firstly, the ABC will be empowered to establish subsidiary companies and joint ventures to undertake authorised business activities; secondly, the position of the staff elected Director on the Board of the ABC will be formalised; thirdly, the ABC will be permitted to appoint officers as unattached officers in line with the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922; and fourthly, the forfeiture of office of ABC staff will be provided for in circumstances identical to those provided for in the Public Service Act. The Bill will also repeal the power of the Minister for Communications to prohibit the broadcasting or televising of any matter. The Minister has the power to prohibit items being broadcast by the Special Broadcasting Service under section 78A of the Broadcasting and Television Act, broadcasting by the commercial licensees under section 99 (3) of the same Act and broadcasting by the ABC under section 78 (1) of the ABC Act. It is not expected that these measures will result in any costs to the Commonwealth. While the ABC's power to establish subsidiary companies is designed to establish a more efficient and profitable operation of the Corporation's commercial activities, it is not possible, at this stage, to estimate the amount of dividends or profits that the Corporation will earn. On 17 March 1985, the Minister for Communications foreshadowed legislative amendments which would enable the ABC to establish subsidiaries and to enter into other forms of joint venture. The Bill provides that the ABC may form or participate with other persons in the formation of companies, partnerships or other joint ventures which are to carry on an 'authorised business'. An 'authorised business' is in turn confined to the current range of the Corporation's permitted activities. The provision does not widen the categories of the Corporation's business activities: It modernises its corporate structure and enables it to join with the private sector in the furtherance of its activities in a more modern business like way. The ABC is essentially a non-competitive authority operating in a fiercely competitive and commercial environment. It has some commercial operations such as merchandising and concert management; However, the ABC is not at present able to effectively build on its potential for developing such operations solely out of its own resources. The Government considers that by enabling the Corporation to establish subsidiary companies or to enter into joint ventures with other business groups, it will be able to utilise more effectively its expertise and resources. These business enterprises will be required to generate at least sufficient revenue to support their activities and where possible generate returns to the Corporation which may be applied to specific activities or broadcasting purposes such as the encouragement of Australian content in ABC drama production. Some examples of the types of appropriate activities include concert management, the hiring out of spare capacity-for example, film production equipment and studios during seasonal lulls-audience research and program sales. There is considerable merit in allowing the ABC's commercial activities the same freedom that applies to the activities of a commercial authority such as Telecom Australia. In fact the legislative amendments are modelled on section 10A of the Telecommunications Act 1975. Government control would be maintained over the types of activities undertaken by the ABC utilising this new power. Before the ABC can enter into such an arrangement or devote funds to it the approval of the Minister for Communications is necessary. Further the Minister, will consult with the Treasurer and Minister for Finance before reaching any decision on such proposals. Also any agreement or contract between the Corporation and a subsidiary company must include a provision empowering the Corporation to terminate the agreement or contract if the venture ceases to undertake an activity approved by the Minister and the Minister may direct the Corporation to dispose of its interests in the company or terminate the agreement or the contract. On 18 April 1985, the Minister for Communications foreshadowed that the Government intended to provide statutory backing for the position of a staff elected Director on the Board of the ABC. As you will be aware a representative of ABC staff, Mr Thomas Molomby, was appointed to the ABC board on 15 December 1983. The purposes of these legislative amendments is to formalise the position of a staff elected Director on the Board. This Director will be automatically appointed to the Board following the declaration of the results of an election by ABC staff. The staff elected Director will hold office for a term of two years whereas the other non-executive Directors hold office for a period of three or five years. In other respects the staff elected Director, will have the same powers and functions as the other non-executive Directors. Because of the rather unusual profile of ABC 'staff' the Bill goes to some lengths to define the eligibility of candidates and electors. Eligibility extends to full time employees who are defined as those who are employed for 24 or more hours per week and to persons who are contracted to perform services for the corporation under the direction and control of the Managing Director or another officer of the Corporation. The Bill also allows for the staff elected Director to have a deputy. Two further legislative changes will be introduced to the ABC Act in respect of ABC staffing arrangements. These changes are consistent with provisions applying in the Australian Public Service. A new provision will empower the Managing Director to appoint a new officer as an unattached officer. This is line with the power of the Public Service Board under section 42 of the Public Service Act 1922. The introduction of this section will give the ABC greater flexibility in staffing matters and enable it to recruit people to undertake tasks related to a range of positions or areas of work within the ABC. The second amendment will introduce a forfeiture of office provision for continued absenteeism of ABC staff. The proposed amendment is based on a similar provision in the Public Service Act 1922-Section (66a). The provision empowers the Managing Director to notify an officer who is absent on unauthorised leave for an extended period that he will be deemed to have retired unless the officer returns to duty or explains the absence to the Managing Director within two weeks of receiving the notice. As a safeguard an officer who has been deemed to have retired may apply to the Managing Director for reappointment to the Service. Where the Managing Director refuses such an application the officer may appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board against the refusal. The Disciplinary Appeal Board may confirm the refusal or recommend to the Managing Director that the appellant be reappointed. The Managing Director must accept such a recommendation. On 18 April 1985 the Minister for Communications announced that the Government intended to seek amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act to repeal the Minister for Communications' power to prohibit radio and television broadcasts. It is the Government's view that these powers are incompatible with the ideals of a democratic society in peacetime. The exercise of these powers could result in objectionable censorship and the curbing of freedom of speech while providing a means for undue political influence over broadcasters. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to these Bills. Messages received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate to the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 and the Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985. Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985 without making the Senate's requested amendment. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Messages Nos 135 to 137 of the House of Representatives relating to the Dairy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, the Dairy Produce Market Support Bill 1985 and the Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1985, being considered together in Committee of the Whole on the next day of sitting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The President has received the following message from the House of Representatives: Message No. 138 Mr President, The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day: That the House concurs in the resolution transmitted to the House in message No. 63 of the Senate, viz.: That the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives be authorised to permit, at their discretion, Professor Gordon Reid to examine and copy the records of the Joint Library Committee subsequent to 22 May 1975, in the case of non-confidential material, and subsequent to 22 May 1955 in the case of confidential material. That the foregoing Resolution has effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. H. A. JENKINS Speaker House of Representatives,Canberra, 24 May 1985 a.m. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders- (a) the Senate meet from Tuesday, 28 May 1985 to Friday, 31 May 1985; (b) the days and hours of meeting of the Senate on those days be- (i) Tuesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (ii) Wednesday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (iii) Thursday, 10 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (iv) Friday, 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.- 4.15 p.m. (c) the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day; and (d) the routine of business for each of those days be as follows: (i) Petitions (ii) Notices of Motion (iii) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (iv) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (v) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (vi) At 2 p.m., Questions (vii) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (viii) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (ix) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.03) —I would appreciate some indication from the Government that this motion has been put down on the basis that the Government proposes that the Senate rise on Friday and not return until the Budget session. The period of sittings has been prolonged. We are now in the fourth week of sitting without a break and, unusually, we are sitting five days and four nights this week. In the view of the Opposition, that is a difficult but reasonable program to set if it is the Government's intention to rise at 4.15 p.m. on Friday. Looking at the Government's business, I see that there is a very large amount of legislation. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has added very considerably to that list with the Bills that he has introduced in the last 10 minutes or quarter of an hour. We would appreciate some confirmation of the Government's intention. The Opposition expects to try to deal expeditiously with the Government's business. There are a number of Bills that will attract debate and there are some matters of major public interest and importance. While committing itself to an expeditious and sensible debate on the Government's program, the Opposition would not, however, give any undertaking that that would necessarily mean that the whole program will be completed. I do not know whether the Minister has in mind the Government's trying to get all the Bills on the Notice Paper plus the ones that have been added today, or whether some pruning might be in order. In any event, if the Government indicated that it intended to sit next week, there would be considerable resistance to the proposition that the Minister has just put before us. If, as I understand from what was said last week, it is proposed that we should rise on Friday at 4.15 p.m.-- Senator Chipp —Could you repeat that point, please? Senator CHANEY —If the Government had it in mind to sit next week, we would be less than happy with this proposal because it is a very heavy sitting program. If we were to come back for a fifth continuous week of sitting there would be some resistance to the sort of program the Minister has indicated we shall follow this week. It involves sitting every night this week, except Friday. I think it is extremely physically wearing on senators to have these sorts of sittings. In terms of how the Parliament should act, once out of curiosity I went through the House of Representatives record to find out when honourable members had been ejected from the chambers. I was somewhat shocked to find that even Sir Paul Hasluck, as he is now, was once thrown out of the chamber. In common with most put out of the chamber, he was thrown out on a Thursday night on the third week of sitting under the old pattern. Senator Chipp —Was that when he was wet at the time? Senator CHANEY —I do not think that it was that incident. The point is that there is a fair degree of wear and tear-not least, of course, on Government Ministers-on all honourable senators. For that reason, if the Government were proposing to sit after this week, we would not wish to go along with this proposal. If, as I understand, it is the Government's intention to conclude the sittings this week, the Opposition is prepared to go along with it. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(4.06) —The Australian Democrats take essentially the same position as the Opposition. Senator Robert Ray —On everything. Senator CHIPP —I wish that the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party would make up their minds on whose side the Democrats are. Both claim us as their own, whereas the statistics indicate that lately the Liberal Party and the Labor Party are voting together on all issues, the only opposition in this place to this rather strange unity ticket being the Australian Democrats. I am pleased that my friend Senator Chaney did not-and it is the last thing I want to do at this stage-score points off the Government for racing things through at the last moment by using old cliches such as 'legislation by exhaustion', because for many years, certainly in my time here, every government of every persuasion has done this. Senator Missen —This is the worst ever. Senator CHIPP —I have seen worse. A member of my Party then, and of Senator Missen's Party, the Liberal Party, the then Leader of the House, got 19 Bills through in three hours by the use of the guillotine. It is done by all parties. Senator Harradine —Reg Withers wasn't too bad. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge Senator Harradine's interjection because it is fair. It is done by all political parties. Sometimes I wonder about the extent to which the political party in power is responsible, or to blame, for this situation or whether some incredibly clever, devious bureaucrats leave the contentious legislation until the last few days, hoping that the legislators, now synonymous with senators-because the House of Representatives gets up when it pleases-will be too tired to look closely at legislation and therefore allow it to pass, virtually by default. Whoever's fault it is, it is the unanimous view of honourable senators that it is an appalling state of affairs when we are asked to consider and pass so many Bills in the last few days. The Democrats generally oppose this motion. We will not divide on it but we hold the position explained by Senator Chaney. We very reluctantly agree to sitting four late nights on the condition-I understand there is to be as close to an undertaking as possible, without giving an undertaking, which might be a Clayton's undertaking-that we rise on Friday until 20 August. I appreciate the position of Senator Grimes. He cannot, and should not, give such an undertaking. However, if for whatever good reason-there could well be a good reason-the Democrats, the Labor Party or the National Party of Australia spend more time debating a Bill for legitimate parliamentary or political reasons between now and Friday, this position could be open to change. On behalf of the Democrats I give a very strong preference not to sit four late nights because we believe we cannot do justice to legislation in that time, or do justice to our health with that sort of sitting time. If there are developments such that it appears that we will not adjourn next Friday until 20 August, we would far prefer to have this matter reviewed, to come back next week and sit all next week if that is possible. We certainly will be very unhappy if, by the chain of circumstances, we find that we are sitting until say, midnight on Friday, or whatever. It would be far better to have sensible sitting hours this week and return next week. In saying that, I am not trying to score any points. I just wish the Senate well in its very ambitious program upon which it is embarking in order to have the business of the Senate completed by Friday next. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.10) —I am aware, as is everybody else, that time is precious, but I beg leave of the Senate to register my concern that the opportunity to debate General Business is important for non-government senators and even back bench Government senators. I point out that last week time for debate on General Business was taken up by debate on the dairy legislation. I acknowledge the reason for that. The House of Representatives was rising and we were amending that piece of legislation. But some Australian Democrat Bills were listed for discussion at that time and even after the dairy legislation went through we did not get back to them. We continued with Government Business. What concerns me is that we seem to be setting a precedent. General Business is not being adequately dealt with and is not being given the status it deserves. Quite obviously, any honourable senator who has items listed for discussion under General Business considers that his item deserves the most importance. My General Business notice of motion on youth unemployment is General Business notice of motion No. 1. I acknowledge immediately that often times there are avenues other than General Business notices of motion, including debates on legislation, by which one can address the matters that one wanted to address by placing the notices of motion on the Notice Paper. For example, I could talk about youth unemployment, and have done so, in other debates. Notice of motion No. 2 is about family taxation. I am able to talk about that matter in other debates and, presumably, I will be able to do so in a debate which is coming up in the very near future-possibly today. But that is not the case normally speaking, when it comes to General Business orders of the day, when we debate legislation which can be dealt with appropriately only at that stage. I instance the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill which I introduced and which relates to overseas travel entitlements for de factos. Those of us who were in the chamber at the time well recall that at the end of last session a motion was moved to give precedence to Government Business over General Business on Thursdays. When that motion came before the chamber it was stated that it was well recognised that that piece of legislation was important and that the issues had to be addressed regardless of whether one was on one side or the other side. The only way in which those matters can be addressed is by dealing with them at the time of consideration of General Business. I attempt not to interrupt or unduly interfere with the smooth functioning of the business of the Senate. I admit that the other night was an aberration but history may well show that I was right. I ask honourable senators to consider that matter when all the facts are there. But I appeal to the Government to give this matter very serious consideration in future. Perhaps we should deal with General Business in the first week of Parliament when the House of Representatives is dealing with all its Bills. Senator Haines —That is much too sensible. Senator HARRADINE —It may be too sensible, but I am making the suggestion that instead of twiddling our thumbs early in the session we could have one or two periods to deal with General Business. General Business would not have to be truncated, as it is now. I understand the predicament the Government is in. I also acknowledge that Ministers, of all people, are now pressured. I want to co-operate in achieving business going through this Parliament and in its being properly reviewed. I hope that my suggestion will be considered, not only by the Government but also by the Opposition and the Australian Democrats. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(4.16) —Having listened to the motion for the proposed sitting hours for this week, I note that the time between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. on Thursday, which was used for discussions of matters of public interest and things of that kind, is also not available. I have listened very carefully to what Senator Harradine has just said. I point out to the Senate that recently I wanted to get a couple of documents incorporated in Hansard. I was not allowed to do so by leave. So, on this coming Thursday, I intended to read them into Hansard. I tried to do so during the adjournment debate one night last week. I am sure that it will not be reflecting on the Chair if I say that a quorum was called for but that unfortunately not enough honourable senators were left in the building at that stage to form one. However, this is a matter that I think is reasonably important. The fact is that I tried to get something done by leave. It was disallowed. I tried to do it during the adjournment debate. Whether by design or by accident the Senate was counted out, I think, for only the second time since I joined this place. Senator Grimes —I don't know where they all were. Senator TOWNLEY —Sometimes when they are here I am not sure whether they all know where they are, either. However, I can assure the Senate that Senator Grimes was here at that time because I am not sure whether he did not nod to the person who called for the quorum, or maybe he tried to stop him from doing so. The fact is that the Senate was counted out. There are some matters I want to get on the record. Even with the long sitting hours this week I wonder when on earth I will be able to do it. Senator Haines —We are not sitting long enough. Senator TOWNLEY —I agree. It is scandalous that we will have sat for four weeks this month, yet in the eight months to the start of next session there will have been only eight weeks of sitting. That to me is a scandalous situation. I agree with Senator Haines that Parliament is not sitting for long enough. If Senator Haines moves a motion to sit for longer I will certainly join her, at any time. However, I would like some guarantee that quorums or things of that kind will not be called for during the adjournment debate in the next few days of the Senate's sitting. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.18) —in reply-I assure honourable senators that I am not into masochism and that I do not really want to be here every night this week. If we did not intend to get up at the end of this week I certainly would not have had the cheek to propose hours of sitting such as these, nor would I have survived the wrath of my colleagues. I briefly mention a couple of points. Senator Harradine raised the matter of General Business. This session, the only time General Business has gone by the board has been on one day for the purpose of holding Estimates committee hearings-normally that takes two days-and last week, when part of the time for General Business went largely by arrangement. I can remember having had General Business knocked off the timetable for two and three weeks towards the end of a session, plus a couple of times for Estimates committee hearings. However, I will certainly take on board Senator Harradine's idea that we spend the first week or two of a session discussing General Business. At least it would liven the place up for a couple of weeks. That would be very good. I will ignore Senator Townley's point about the Senate having been counted out the other night-I do not want to dob in the honourable senators who went home. However, I accept Senator Townley's idea that we make use of the lunch hour on Thursday for the discussion of General Business. I would certainly rather he made use of that time to do so than of the adjournment debate, which begins at 10.30 p.m. We removed that time from the timetable because we are sitting Thursday night. However, if it is the wish of the Senate, I am happy to move that we amend the proposed sitting hours for Thursday to 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., which leaves the time from 12.45 p.m. to 2 p.m. for the discussion of matters of public interest. I know it is not Christmas, but it is getting on. I seek leave to move an amendment. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —I move: Sub-paragraph (b) (iii), leave out the sub-paragraph, insert the following sub-paragraph: Thursday 10 a.m.- 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. I hope that will keep Senator Townley off the adjournment. Senator Townley can incorporate what he likes this week. I agree with Senator Chipp and Senator Chaney that, if the situation looks impossible on Wednesday, obviously we will have trouble battling on in this way, but at the moment by carefully nursing the debates through, by the Manager of Government Business leaning on certain Ministers and having certain pruning made, I believe we can make it fairly reasonably and comfortably by Friday. Therefore, I urge honourable senators to support the hours of sitting as moved. Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Debate resumed. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.22) —I asked that this matter be delayed to enable me to confer with the relevant Broadcasting Committee. The Opposition has no objection to the motion as moved by the Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.22) —I want to raise some points about the wording of the guidelines that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has determined should govern the broadcasting of excerpts. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) might be able to clarify those points. The third guideline states: Excerpts shall be used in news, news commentary, documentary or educational historical programs only, or such other programs as determined by the Joint Committee . . . They are not to be used for the purposes of light entertainment, satire, or ridicule. What is the position of items within news and news commentary which are often light entertainment? Are they to be excluded or does the second part of that guideline merely refer to programs which are not light entertainment? Is it then the intent to exclude some of the celebrated comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) or even the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney)? For example, there was a very interesting discussion a little while ago in this place on alligator farms. Are they to be excluded under that guideline? Senator Collard —That was a very serious matter. Senator MACKLIN —It was indeed. I turn to guideline No. 7, which states: Unusual events shall not be given undue emphasis. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify what an unusual event is. I imagine that the media would want to give it due emphasis because it is unusual. For example, is the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives calling the Prime Minister a liar an unusual event or not? I think it probably would be unusual and that it might very well be something that the news media wish to comment on. Presumably if this is not clarified, they will be unable to do so. Guideline No. 12 states: A fortnightly return shall be provided to the Committee by media organisations as to the excerpts of proceedings broadcast, indicating the House from which the excerpts were taken, the subject matter of proceedings, names of Senators and Members . . . the length of time . . . Is it possible to indicate who wants all that information and why? There must be somebody within the bureaucracy who has a filing cabinet which is empty and who actually wants to fill it, but I really do not believe that we should be actively seeking to generate vast quantities of information unless somebody somewhere can make good use of the information. If we are going to have a return, some indication, even Hansard page, might be sufficient, without imposing on the people who will be using this material. In general it seems to me that this proposition is unduly cautious. I would have thought that the simplest way of operating in this area would have been to allow the stations to use the material and then review it at a later stage, rather than seek to tie them down in this way. I imagine most of the media services will say: 'You can keep all of your questions and interjections to yourselves', or words to that effect. I wonder whether the Minister might clarify those points, particularly as to the meaning of paragraph 3, which is certainly a very ambiguous proposition. Lastly I would like to know who actually makes the decisions in regard to paragraphs 3 and 7. For example, who makes the decision as to what is an unusual event, or satire, or ridicule? Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.26) —The selective broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is a very difficult area. The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has obviously addressed this matter at length and has come down with a conclusion which, all things being considered, is about the best possible in the time available to it, and without the benefit of experience in this area in Australia. My observation of the excerpts broadcast from the United Kingdom House of Commons is that they are usually confined to statements made by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. If the same thing were to happen in Australia I would view it as an unfortunate entrenchment of the major parties and the major parliamentary leaders at the expense of the diversity of viewpoints represented in this chamber. One of the problems this experiment may lead to is forcing senators to go for the short 35-or 40-second grab at the beginning of their speeches, whereas very often in this chamber, which is the House of review, we really need to develop an argument in a logical, fair, responsible and dispassionate way. That does not enable one to say things that could then be used by the media in a 35-second grab. That is the inherent problem and is not really one that can be overcome by the Committee. The House of Representatives obviously is intent upon enabling excerpts to be used from its broadcasts, whether they are excerpts on a broadcast day or a non-broadcast day. The Senate has this recommendation before it to see whether it too will enable this to take place. As the House of Representatives is going to enable this to take place, I see no reason why the Senate should not. However, I believe it must be looked at after a period of, say, six months so that consideration can then be given by the Committee and the Parliament as to how it is operating. It is therefore important that regular reports be given by, or schedules be forwarded from, the broadcasting stations to the Parliament so that such assessments can be made. One thing we need to address is the right of reply of ordinary citizens to things that are said, not so much in here, because they are not generally said in here, but in the House of Representatives. People are named by members of parliament. When an excerpt of the parliamentary proceedings is broadcast, for example on a news program, the naming of people by a member of parliament in the atmosphere of the House gives an added emphasis to that circumstance and results in an added reflection on the people who are named. Senator Missen —The Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege does deal with that; it is just that we have not dealt with it yet. Senator HARRADINE —I understand that; I am coming to it. I believe that it is imperative that the ordinary citizen has the right of reply, and in the same context; that is, if the person so desires, he or she should have the right to refute, to challenge or to query what has been said about the individual or group in the Parliament. I acknowledge what Senator Missen said, that an inquiry into this very aspect is currently being undertaken by the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges. I believe that this would be the time to adopt some measure on this aspect to give the ordinary citizen some protection from being reflected upon in the chamber. After all, as I understand it, the material has some sort of qualified privilege. I have not gone to the extent of deciding or examining to what extent that privilege applies, but I believe that if people can use privilege in this Parliament, persons outside the Parliament ought to have the right of reply. I congratulate the Committee on its obvious hard work and the consideration it has given to this important matter. I will be supporting the proposition on the basis that it be given a trial period. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.32) —I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings which was responsible for this motion which authorises the broadcasting and re-broadcasting of excerpts of parliamentary proceedings. I remind the Senate that this is intended to be done only on a trial basis until the end of the Budget session. Senator Macklin expressed some concern about an over-cautious approach. We are certainly breaking new ground in this area in Australia. But excerpts are taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation and other broadcasting media; and perhaps we in Australia are lagging the field. I think it is essential, in view of the fact that we are embarking on a new proposal, that there be some monitoring of what is taking place, and the Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings is responsible for that monitoring. Senator Macklin also expressed some concern about the high standards that the Committee has set. I think it is important that this Parliament is not set up to ridicule or satire unduly and that the excerpts are essentially to be used in news broadcasts, educational programs and the like. I think that is appropriate for this chamber. I hope that the media around this country will make full use of the opportunity available for the taking of excerpts from both Houses of this Parliament to ensure that democracy is furthered and that people understand a little more fully what is debated in this chamber. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion moved by Senator Grimes. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(4.33) —in reply-To give a personal view, I have always thought it was slightly ridiculous that we allow the print media to do what they will with what happens in this place, yet in 1985 we ignore the fact that we have the electronic media. The second thing I found ridiculous was to be sitting in a hotel room in Amsterdam in 1979 hearing Mr Peacock announcing why he was resigning from the Ministry and saying horrible things about Mr Fraser, and Mr Fraser saying horrible things back. Senator Chipp —In this Parliament? Senator GRIMES —Yes. It was a direct take from the parliamentary broadcast. I find from those who are interested that one can hear direct takes from parliamentary broadcasts in Australia on the British Broadcasting Corporation foreign service, if one goes to Amsterdam or if one has a short wave receiver. The second thing is that people who visit Canada find that they can not only listen to excerpts from the Parliament but also watch them on television. They can watch televised excerpts from the provincial parliaments. In the case of Quebec, I think, one can watch the whole of that provincial parliament on television all day every day. All I can say is that there are some real masochists over there. The reason why the Committee has been so cautious was well summed up by Senator Watson. This is a very conservative Parliament when it comes to exposing ourselves to the light of day in this way, and we feel that it is very new. Senator Withers —We do not believe in indecent exposure. Senator GRIMES —It may well be indecent, Senator Withers; I agree. I should have thought that there were real problems with the restriction on using the items for light entertainment, satire or ridicule. I should have thought that there could be plenty of light entertainment, satire or ridicule in the middle of the National or any other news program just by playing straight excerpts. But I do not think that that is what the Committee means. I think that the Committee means that such items should not be used on the Don Lane Show or the Max Gillies show, or something like that. I should have thought that there was so much satire and ridicule of this Parliament by people such as Gillies, Mike Carlton and Mungo MacCallum, in the newspapers and everywhere else, that we could take a bit more. I am informed by the President that the judgment of what is an unusual event is up to the station, and that the Committee will monitor it later. I would not have thought that someone calling someone else a liar was likely to be unusual; but someone coughing and losing his false teeth, or something like that, might be unusual. As to the fortnightly returns, all these things were introduced first, because the Committee knows very well that this is a very cautious Parliament and that parliamentarians are generally very cautious about these matters, and that the Committee should monitor; it should ask the Parliament to introduce this on a trial basis and monitor what is happening. After it has been monitored, with these fortnightly returns-if anyone reads them-the Speaker, the President and members of the Committee will look at the situation, and we may well then find, as I would hope, that we do not need that mass of paper work. But the purpose of requiring the information is so that the Committee can monitor what happens and report to the Parliament. This is the first time that any suggestion has been put to the Parliament for reform of the parliamentary broadcasting procedures. Considering that broadcasting was introduced in 1946 and that it is now 1985, it is a pretty small reform; but it is a reform which is in line with what happens in the other forms of media, and it is in line with what happens in the rest of the world. Maybe it is about time we caught up with the rest of the world, so I also recommend that people take this cautious first step to enable us to take, perhaps, a bigger step next time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 23 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.38) — On Thursday afternoon I began speaking to this Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. The major areas of concern, as I was outlining then, are with regard to the Government's amendments to section 47 of the Repatriation Act and with regard to the application of a 40-year limitation period. Section 47 of the Act sets out the onus of proof on which claims and applications for disability and service pensions are decided. The 1943 version of section 47 was amended in 1977. As I was saying on Thursday afternoon, it actually became known as the Evatt amendment. In one of the debates on this legislation, when other sections were being amended in 1955, Dr Evatt, in the House of Representatives, said this about the onus of proof provisions: . . . it must be accepted unless one can say, as a jury must say before convicting a person, that the condition could not have had anything to do with war service, and be sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the statement of the principle. That is the statement of the principle that we are talking about. However, the Government has decided to attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes. Seemingly, it has done so to the Opposition to some extent by stating in its explanatory material-it is repeated in the second reading speech of the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes)-that the recent judgment of the High Court of Australia suggested that a disability pension or war widow's pension be paid even in a case where there is no evidence which points to there being a reasonable possibility of a connection between a veteran's incapacity or death and his war service. The Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs claimed in his second reading speech: . . . in order for a pension not to be granted it would appear that the Repatriation Commission would have to demonstrate conclusively that the cause of a veteran's incapacity or death was not contributed to in any way by anything related to the veteran's period of war service. Quite frankly, the Government is relying on the minority judgment of Mr Justice Brennan in the O'Brien case. It might be worthwhile looking at two items mentioned in that majority judgment. It is very clear on both of those items. It states: With all respect and despite the valiant advocacy of the Solicitor-General, we consider it to be a surprising conclusion. In our opinion, it flies in the face of commonsense to say that an anxiety neurosis which is occasioned by reason of the separation of the respondent from his wife because of his war service at a time when she is in desperate need of his company is not attributable to war service. The judgment is stating quite clearly that there is a connection. I believe that an even more important statement appears on page 12 of the judgment. The judges address themselves quite specifically to the argument that the Government has been bandying around about there being no connection between the two. The majority judgment states: . . . S. 47 (2) does not require the Tribunal to grant a claim unless it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the non-existence of every evidentiary fact. Let us be very clear about this. Section 47 does not require the Tribunal to grant such a claim. What the Government has been saying is an out and out gross misrepresentation of the High Court judgment. That judgment is very clear. One of the things about High Court judgments-I suppose it is because the judges have nobody sitting above them-is that they actually tend to be written in very plain English. The majority judgment goes on: The question for the Tribunal is whether it is satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim . . . It will disallow a claim if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that any fact necessary to establish entitlement does not exist. I would have thought that that would be pretty clear even to the Government unless the Government was intent, as it undoubtedly is, on misrepresenting that act for its own end. What is the end that the Government is seeking in this gross misrepresentation? Why is it attempting such misrepresentation? I think that is also pretty clear. The Government is attempting in this place to cut the entitlements of war veterans and their widows to save some dollars. It is quite happy to put aside the moral obligation of governments towards people in the armed forces when they send them overseas to engage in war. This Government is now saying: 'We are quite happy with the whole operation of giving you ticker-tape receptions when you come back from, say, the Second World War. But now, 40 years on'-I allude to the fact that it is 40 years on-'we have no intention whatsoever of keeping to our obligation because we want to make some other adjustments elsewhere in the economy'. I point very clearly to that 40-year level. Why is it 40 years? It happens to be 40 years since the Second World War. That is the only reason that period is turning up. Why is that so important? Let me run down in round terms the number of veterans who are still alive in Australia today, who are survivors of various engagements. There are 6,000 veterans from World War I, 490,000 from World War II, 15,000 from the Korean War, and 40,000 from the Vietnam War. In view of those figures, what proportion do the Second World War veterans-that is, those who are 40-years on-make of the totality? They constitute 80 per cent of the total, and that is precisely why the Government is engaged in this activity. The Government knows that it will have to redeem the promise given to those people who went to the Second World War, and it does not want to redeem that promise. So we have the assertion of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs that now, suddenly, in 1985 the Court is interpreting section 47 very generously and that this has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of successful claims. Indeed, the Minister said that claims are pouring into the Department and there is now almost, to use the Minister's phrase, an automatic acceptance of these claims. The reason more claims are being lodged now is that Second World War veterans are all approaching the age of 60. One would imagine under any circumstances that when people reach that age and have war disabilities, they will be requiring additional support from the community, additional support from the repatriation hospitals, and additional payments to assist them in an otherwise difficult time. In other words, the Government now proposes, when those people are approaching retirement, to renege on the operation. It is no good the Government saying that the legislation does not apply to people who have their claims in the system. As I shall show in the Committee stage, clause after clause of the Bill is retrospective in effect. I shall go through each clause and seek from the Minister a detailed and clear explanation of its operation. A number of clauses not only are retrospective but also conflict with one another. There are clauses which seemingly on the surface allow certain items and then take them away by stealth in another clause. The Opposition, whose members have been so strenuous with regard to retrospective legislation in other areas, have decided to allow this one just to run. They see no problem in retrospectivity as it applies to the taking away of veterans' entitlements. Opposition members are quite happy to have retrospectivity applying to that area, but not to other areas. I hope that those members of the Opposition who have consistently voted against penal retrospective provisions will vote against these provisions when it comes to a vote later today. There is no doubt that we are confronted with this attempt by the Government, without consultation with the various veterans' organisations. A promise was given not only in this place by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; a clear promise was also given in the House of Representatives by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on behalf of this Government that the legislation to change these various parts of the Act would be tabled now, and then would be able to be examined in detail and discussed by the various veterans' organisations, and that the debate in this place was to be held in the Budget session. That was an undertaking given by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and by the Prime Minister not only here and in the House of Representatives but also at almost every conference of veterans' organisations which the Minister has addressed this year-and there have been many such conferences. Furthermore, it is in Press releases and in documents published by the Department with regard to the various items. There has been a great deal of concern in the community about section 47. Indeed, last year when I raised the matter I was roundly attacked by the Minister because I even dared suggest that the Minister or the Government intended to do this. The Minister said that I was being malicious to suggest that there were to be changes to section 47. But one could see as plain as day that was to occur. What else is contained in this legislation? There are a number of items. For example, we have the 40-year limit. This means, quite clearly, that we are attempting to cut off benefits for people at a stage when they may very well require support but have not yet applied for it. We are about to cut off benefit for widows whose husbands' deaths occurred 40 years after the cessation of hostilities. In other words, we are talking quite deliberately and quite cold-bloodedly about the 490,000 veterans from the Second World War who are alive today and the widows they will leave. That amendment will fall very cruelly on many of those widows in their declining years-the very time when this country has a moral obligation to support them. It is extraordinary that we import this matter into a discussion about money. Remember, this was introduced in a cost-cutting exercise. We are quite happy to spare no expense at a time of war-we never talk about cost cuts during war-but after the war is finished we want to cut cost. The cost of war lives on in the lives of the people who are sent away. The third major item, of course, is the totally and permanently incapacitated eligibility criteria. Basically, the limitation that the Government now seeks to introduce will mean that a veteran under the age of 65 who is unemployed will be rejected because he is unemployed and for no other reason. Every other thing being equal, if a person is under 65 and unemployed there will be that rejection. If a person is over 65 and on a 100 per cent pension, say, for a heart condition, he cannot gain the higher level of compensation because after 65 a person is retired. He may be on a pension but since it is not earned income that person also will not count. The Government is actually getting it both ways, coming and going. In this mean little exercise the Government is saying: 'No matter how you toss the coin we will always win'. As I said clearly last time I spoke on this matter, the Government appears willing in its cost-cutting exercises to sacrifice the one group in Australia that the Government, on behalf of the community, has a continuing and unalterable moral commitment to support, regardless of the circumstances. When this country is engaging in war we are overjoyed to have people going off to war to support us and to defend our liberty. It seems to me that the least we can do is be generous when they return with those types of problems that necessarily occur during war service. I remind the Senate that that is precisely what the O'Brien case majority judgment said: Those entitlements are to be given only if there is a connection with war service. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.54) —I rise to speak in this debate not because this is a subject on which I have great knowledge-it is certainly not a matter to which I have given my full attention-but because it is a matter which has been brought to my attention as one of the examples of the Government rushing forward with legislation and proceeding quite wrongly and quite contrary to its undertaking. I think my colleagues in the Opposition are agreed on this matter. Unfortunately, there is less agreement as to the actual remedy we should have. I draw attention to the fact that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 is one of the many Bills that have not been given proper attention that have come forward at this time. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, of which I am Deputy Chairman, has not even adverted to these points I now raise in the matters which have come before it. Indeed, the way in which this Government has proceeded with its whole legislative program is such that it is impossible for this Parliament to consider sensibly reasonable legislation in the way it ought to be considered. I believe we should pause and consider rather carefully the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill before we proceed with it. Undoubtedly, the Government has moved swiftly to change the entitlements which ex-servicemen and their widows have had over many years. Those entitlements have been clarified by the opinion of the highest jurisdiction, the High Court of Australia, for which the Government now prefers to substitute a minority opinion. One might ask: Is it because of some great tax saving that these changes were announced in the economic statement that came before us in May 1985? That statement indicates that the Government is considering changing the system by which pensions are granted. Against that, one has the views expressed by Mr Maher, a back bench member of the Federal Parliament, who spoke on this matter in the House of Representatives a few days ago. I speak somewhat generally about the way the House of Representatives has handled this whole matter. Mr Maher said: The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill arises from the May economic statement. I do not believe it will save any money at all. It merely represents a tidying up of the repatriation legislation and the modernising, shall we say, of a lot of measures which have got out of kilter. I believe that is a very insincere statement. If it is true that the legislation will not save the Government any money at all, why is there a great hurry about this legislation? There has been a fair amount of obscurity about what has been going on. We must remember that in the House of Representatives this Bill was considered last week for about three-quarters of an hour and then was guillotined through. In the course of speeches in that short period, the honourable member for Denison, Mr Hodgman, and the former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Adermann, both spoke very strongly and critically of the Government and its actions. I will read one or two things that were said then, because I believe it is important that this Senate should act in accordance with the strength of those words. Mr Hodgman said. . . . the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has deliberately chosen that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will be sneaked through the House at 11 o'clock at night with a time limit of 45 minutes debate while the Government changes the law relating to the entitlements of every ex-serviceman and woman in Australia and their dependants. It is a scandal and a disgrace. He went on to say: This is the Government which promised that any major amendment to section 47-- which is the major question under consideration here-- would be clearly discussed, that there would be consultation and that any such amendment would be included in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. But what has this dishonest Government done? It has sneaked in this measure as part of the mini-Budget. It has breached a tradition of 65 years of consultation with the Returned Services League. The Prime Minister and those who support him on this matter, having broken their word, have now created a situation where, quite frankly, they are scared stiff to debate this Bill in broad daylight. Similar remarks were made by Mr Adermann. This legislation was rushed through the House of Representatives and it is being rushed through this chamber today. I think it is high time we stopped this rush and determined to go no further. Let us see what was said about this by Senator Collard, who is the shadow spokesman for veterans affairs. He said that ex-service organisations had been led to believe that any alterations to section 47, the section affecting the onus of proof in applications for benefits, would be contained in a Veterans' Entitlements Bill and that Bill would lie on the table of Parliament over the winter recess, which would allow adequate time for consultation between the Government and veterans. But by moving in the mini-Budget and trying to rush through amending legislation in the dying hours of the current parliamentary session, the Government has caused great concern to the ex-service community and has, with good reason, been severely criticised for its actions. I believe the problems raised by those members are perfectly sound. It is important that we find the right action to take. Over the weekend I saw protesters from the Legacy organisations in Victoria. They expressed their concern at the way in which the legislation has been rushed through the Parliament. A number of points which they made, I think, are entitled to be known by members of the public. They are concerned that the Government is dealing with this matter in a different way from that which was intended; namely, it has brought forward not a Veterans' Entitlements Bill but the Bill which is before us. They are concerned because this legislation overrides the decision of the High Court in the O'Brien case, which really established what the entitlements of people are. I will not go into the detail that Senator Macklin went into, which I feel requires further consideration. I do not conclude that at the end of all this consideration-if proper consideration is given-we might not decide that section 47 of the Act ought to be changed. What I am saying is that we should not be rushed into this in a way which causes the rights of ex-servicemen to be greatly weakened. The members of the delegation who saw me said also that something like 8,000 persons were waiting before the Veterans' Appeal Board for its consideration of their claims. I think that this is the problem which the Opposition's amendment makes for us. If we wait for a lengthy period we may find that the Government has been able to get rid of most of these decisions and that people will be dealt with on the basis of the new law which will operate for the next six months and which will thereby cause them a great deal of damage. It may be too late then to do anything about it. That, I fear, is a mistake that may be made. The delegates told me that the most fierce feeling was that the Government had been insensitive to people in regard to this matter and that this feeling was to be found in New South Wales and in many other circles. They declared that this was the shabbiest trick of all as far as ex-servicemen were concerned. I am concerned by those recommendations and by the views which are held and which were expressed by the Returned Services League. The RSL, in a telegram to me and no doubt to other senators, said: Reference repatriation amendment legislation to be tabled in the Senate today. Whole of veterans community requests Bill to be deferred as was promised by the Government. The telegram went on to describe the ways in which the legislation would have a serious effect-- Senator Chipp —Who sent that telegram? Senator MISSEN —It was sent to me by Mr Ruxton, the State President of the Victorian Branch of the RSL. Senator Walters —Did you get a copy of Senator Chipp's telegram to them? Senator MISSEN —Yes. I have a copy of Senator Chipp's telegram which was actually sent to various veterans organisations. I do not altogether agree with what Senator Chipp said in that telegram. Insofar as the telegram states that the 'House of Representatives passed the Bill without Liberal opposition', I think that is unfair because the Liberal opposition to the legislation certainly was expressed in the limited time that was available. Senator Chipp —Did the Liberal Party vote against the second reading of the Bill? Senator MISSEN —No. Senator Chipp —So you didn't oppose it? Senator MISSEN —Members of the Liberal Party did not vote against the second reading. They gave notice of an amendment which, as I have said, I find inadequate. Certainly, they expressed in very strong terms criticism of the legislation. Senator Chipp —Words mean nothing; votes are the things that count. Senator MISSEN —I agree with Senator Chipp. I propose to show what I believe by my vote. I say to my friends in the Opposition that I believe a sunset clause is not adequate. Senator Walters —But you also say the Democrats need a double dissolution. Senator MISSEN —I do not know what the honourable senator is mumbling about. I believe that what we need is something that ensures that the Government does not operate to the detriment of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen. If in fact a sunset clause is carried, it may well be that the House of Representatives will be brought back in the next fortnight and an amendment passed. The Government will then have six months in which to deal with the people affected. I feel that the remedy found by the Opposition so far is inadequate and that a deferral of the proposal is a better course. We have the interesting point that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) is missing from this Parliament. I think he is travelling somewhere abroad at the moment. I see that Senator Macklin says that his whereabouts are unknown, although I imagine they are known to some people. Senator Ryan —He is in Greece. We know where he is. Senator MISSEN —The Government knows where he is. That is good. He is certainly not here to face the music on this subject, or to face the ex-service organisations. Senator Ryan —He will be back tomorrow. Senator MISSEN —I am glad he will be back tomorrow. Let us hope that we can keep this going until tomorrow. Senator Walters —Why didn't we leave the debate until tomorrow then? Senator MISSEN —That is a very good idea. We should continue the debate until tomorrow to give him a chance to explain-- Senator Ryan —Back in Australia tomorrow. He may not be in the Senate tomorrow. Senator MISSEN —I think he should come back. He wrote a letter dated 17 November 1984 in which he stated: Dear Sir Gordon,-- I am not sure who Sir Gordon is-- First you state that the retention of section 47 (2) is imperative and is fundamental. I agree with you in respect of determining whether a veteran's incapacity or death is related to his war service. I have stated on a number of occasions that there is no intention to change the onus or standard of proof which rests on the Repatriation Commission in deciding whether a disability is service related. I think he will get a bit of a shock when he comes back and finds that this legislation has appeared on the scene, apparently in his name, and is being proceeded with. Senator Chipp —He will wish he was back in Turkey. Senator MISSEN —Yes, he will. He will probably find that Turkey was much more satisfying than this country. He is cold turkey in the eyes of the people of the ex-service community. I also remind the Senate that this relates to a long and well known tradition of the Australian Labor Party. In particular Dr Evatt fought for the inclusion of section 47 as it is now. In 1955 he said in this Parliament: Where the cause of the case is unknown or imperfectly known the only proper conclusion is that the Minister cannot discharge the burden of proof, because the unknown cause may be a cause incidental to war service, and for that purpose the evidence must reach the same degree of cogency as is required in a criminal case before the accused is found guilty. He means that it must be accepted unless one can say, as a jury must say before convicting a person, that the condition could not have had anything to do with war service, and be sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the statement of the principle. It is still the statement of principle today, as I understand it. I do not know why it is said that it is so necessary to replace that principle. It appears that the Labor Party has gone off that provision and desires now to take the minority opinion in the O'Brien case rather than the majority opinion of the High Court of Australia as the governing principle. Maybe there are good reasons. I have not heard them yet but I am prepared to stay and wait for those reasons and I think that that will be the time to proceed. There is another curious factor about this whole matter which has me puzzled. A letter from the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association dated 27 May 1985 draws our attention to the curious provisions of clause 69 (1), which appear to give and take away entitlements. Clause 69 (1) states: Subject to sub-section (2) the amendments of section 47 of the Repatriation Act 1920 made by section 16 of this Act do not apply to or in relation to the consideration and determination by the Commission, after the commencement of this Act, of a claim for a pension (not being a claim for a service pension) that was received at an office of the Department before 15 May 1985. It looks therefore as though it does not apply retrospectively; it will not be retrospective legislation. We then have to read sub-clause 69 (2). It will be remembered that sub-section (1) was subject to sub-section (2), which reads: Sub-section 47 (2) of the Repatriation Act 1920 as amended by this Act applies to and in relation to the consideration and determination by the Commission, after the commencement of this Act, of a claim for a pension referred to by sub-section (1) of this section. I must admit that I really cannot understand the purpose of that. It may be, as the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association states, that it is designed partly to confuse. The Association states: Without going into detail about our objections to various aspects and of which you are already aware I draw your attention to Clause 69 (1) which excludes claims for a pension made before 15 May 1985 and Clause 69 (2) which has the effect of including such claims within the compass of the amendment. To us this seems to be a confidence trick quite apart from prolix drafting. I think that is a very sound explanation. I will not go into the detail of the Association's proposal, which discusses in more detail the way in which such claims are included and then taken out. The Association further states: From advice received from the DVA source, it has been estimated that up to the current financial year 27,000 claims were outstanding and that in the current year up to 15 May 1985, 35,000 more claims have been received and are outstanding. Whether the DVA is presently able to verify or refute these figures is not known. It may be however that there are in excess of 50,000 claims awaiting determination. One must bear in mind that many of these claimants have been waiting for many years, sometimes six or seven years, with the claims being sent backwards and forwards. The Bill is designed to stop them, both in their original claims and in appeals before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, from proceeding with such claims. The Association concludes by stating: The saving provisions are illusory and largely retrospective in operation and provide yet another example of the draftsmen's art in achieving maximum discrimination in the most convoluted language possible. I make available this letter for any honourable senator who wishes to read the detail. It is very confusing to me as to why this language has been used in the Bill. It is the sort of thing that ought to be investigated more widely by the Senate. It is not a matter we should decide now. Consequently, I indicate that I will vote for the adjournment of debate on this Bill. I believe it is an outrage that in this country legislation is expected to be passed in this way. The number of Bills presented in the last few weeks has been horrendous and has meant that the Bills have not been given adequate consideration by this Parliament. I confess that I do not entirely understand this Bill. I have looked at some parts of it. I had a chance on the weekend to look at only some aspects of the legislation and to form the conclusions which certainly thousands of people in Victoria, at least, and elsewhere, are apparently forming. Senator Macklin —The veterans have only just got the legislation into their hands. Senator MISSEN —That is true. That is part of the problem with this Parliament because we have not had the legislation in our hands. I know that Senator Chipp has stirred up the veterans with a telegram in regard to this matter. Probably they would not have known anything about this matter if it were not for that telegram. Senator Macklin —They probably did. Senator MISSEN —They probably did, yes. That is right. Senator Chipp —But some of them did not. You are quite right. Senator MISSEN —Some would not have. It is ridiculous that we carry on a form of government dependent on getting last minute advice and instructions from people. For this reason I have to disagree with my colleagues on this subject. I do not believe that the sunset clause proposed by my colleagues is good enough because the House of Representatives could come back, adopt it, and wipe out the rights of people within a short period. I believe that this is an eminent case for the adjournment of debate on the Bill and for this Bill to be considered in a fresh light in August. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(5.14) —I begin by saying that I congratulate and admire Senator Missen on the great courage he is showing in supporting the Australian Democrats amendment to the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. I describe the Bill, after 25 years in this place, as one of the grossest betrayals of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen ever brought into this Parliament. The Bill does several things. For example, it removes the thrust of section 47, which transfers the onus of proof from the ex-serviceperson when he or she is applying for a pension for war-caused or war-aggravated injury or illness. In my early years in this Parliament it was a matter of great contention that men and women who had enlisted or had been conscripted for military service for their country, and who subsequently had an injury manifest itself or an illness exacerbated, then had to prove beyond reasonable doubt to a tribunal that it was war-caused or war-aggravated. There were thousands of cases where it was impossible to prove that clinically. Then the massive breakthrough occurred in the form of section 47. I well remember in my days in the House of Representatives when every ex-service organisation in the country cheered as the full thrust of section 47 became apparent. It provided simply that when a claim by an ex-service person was being heard by a tribunal, if there was any doubt in the tribunal's mind about the cause of the injury or illness, the tribunal was bound to find in favour of the applicant. That did not mean that anybody who had served in the services and wanted to bludge with a backache, a cough or any disease under the sun could easily go along to the tribunal, produce a few medical certificates and say: 'There you are, there is some doubt about this injury. You must find in my favour'. It did not mean that at all. That would have made it too easy for the ex-service person who wanted to deceive. That person still had to make out his case and to such an extent that he, or his advocate, had to plant into the mind of the tribunal-that is where the doubt has got to be-that maybe this injury, illness, or disease was either war-caused or war-aggravated. As soon as the ex-serviceman got to that point, that historic watershed, the tribunal necessarily had to find in his or her favour. As a former member of the House of Representatives I, along with almost every other member of that House and, indeed, some senators have acted, even though I am not trained in law, as an advocate for ex-service persons before these repatriation tribunals. Anyone who has so acted would realise that section 47 was heaven sent to the ex-service persons who were suffering probably as a result of the war. Now that has been virtually emasculated; it has virtually been removed by this Government. Harm is being done to widows under this Bill. That is why I say that this Bill is one of the grossest betrayals of ex-servicemen and women ever brought before this Parliament. It is one thing for it to be done by the government of the day. It is tragic; it is devastating and it is diabolical that it should be brought into this Parliament and passed with the collusion of the Liberal and National parties, with the courageous exception of Senator Missen. I have always believed-I say this just as an aside; even as a callow youth of 18 when I joined the Royal Australian Air Force to fight overseas I believed it-that one of the most despicable, rotten things that politicians can do, and we, as politicians, can do despicable, rotten things during our career, is to promise everything to people who are prepared to risk their lives for their country, but renege on those promises as soon as the war is over. At that time those persons who served their country, who risked their lives, who ran the risk of allowing their wives and children to be widowed or orphaned were promised by glib politicians: 'Go and fight for your country and when you come back we will look after you. We will look after your kids'. After all of that, politicians reneged on those promises. Basically there are two kinds of people who find themselves in that situation and the most powerful argument of the hypocrisy that is contained in this legislation can be made about each of them. The first type is the volunteer, the man or woman who, for patriotic or whatever reasons, joins up. He or she may have been single but quite often was married with responsibilities, with children. However, for an ideal, for the sake of what he believed to be for the good of his country, he joined up and was prepared to be sent overseas as a soldier, a sailor or a person in the Air Force, and risk his life, risk permanent illness, risk permanent injury. It is a noble purpose. Whether one agrees with the reason why a person joined up, the reason why he went overseas, is another matter, but he did so. I would have thought that that sort of person, for his selfless devotion to his country, needs loyalty from the politicians who are elected to maintain the promises that were made. An overpowering argument could be made out on that matter. The second kind of person is the conscript. An equally, if not more, powerful argument could be made out concerning him. I am someone who was concerned, as were many of my colleagues here, with the controversial aspects of Vietnam and its war. We were responsible for a number of young men and women going to Vietnam against their will to fight in a war in which they did not believe and to come back as non-heroes. They were possibly the only people to have been sent overseas who came back, as ex-servicemen, to raspberries and jeers, rather than cheers and acclamation. Of course, some of those people died; they left widows. Others came back with war-caused injuries. Senator Walters —They did not come back to jeers. There may have been jeers from you but certainly not from us. Senator CHIPP —I was not making the point that any member of the Liberal Party jeered them. If Senator Walters wants me to, I will state on the record that they did not. Those people came back to jeers from people who represented different political persuasions from those of members of the Liberal Party. However, the fact remains that they went into some kind of hell, against their wishes, and they did not come back, as did the volunteers of, say, the First World War or Second World War, to the acclamation of the crowd. After that, the case to maintain promises of repatriation for the ex-servicemen and their widows in one way can be even stronger. While an over-powering case can be made for volunteers of World War I, World War II, Korea, Malaysia and whatever, an unanswerable case can be made for politicians to be loyal to the promises they made to the people who were conscripted for Vietnam. The Bill breaks those promises in a most savage, ruthless and cruel way. Every member of the Opposition knows that. If Opposition members did not know it, why are they moving an amendment for a sunset clause six months from now? Let us be quite clear about this feather duster that the Liberal and National parties want to use in this debate. They say: 'Let us pass the Bill'-that is the effect of their amendment-'as it is, but six months from now, after all the damage has been done, let us review it'. In that way it can be swallowed up in all the Budget legislation, never to be seen again. That is the precise effect of the Liberal and National parties' amendment. I will come to the motivations for that in a moment. I am proud to say that on behalf of the Australian Democrats, Senator Macklin and I sent an urgent telex to veterans' organisations last Friday. If any member of the Opposition can indicate to me where I have been untruthful, inaccurate or unfair, let him or her interject at the appropriate time and tell me where. The telex reads: Australian Democrats deeply disturbed at the likely result of the Government's assault on the onus of proof provisions (section 47) and repatriation generally. The history of the Bill is as follows: (1) The House of Representatives passed the Bill without Liberal opposition- Senator Walters —That is not true and you know it. Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge the interjection made by Senator Walters. I point out to her that if she refers to the House of Representatives Hansard of Tuesday of last week she will find that not one member of the Opposition was recorded as voting against the Bill. Senator Walters —I did not say that. You are saying there was no opposition. Have you read the debate? It was cut short because it was gagged. Senator CHIPP —I again acknowledge Senator Walters's interjection; every time she speaks she shoots herself in the knee. The only way in which one can oppose something in the Parliament is to vote against it. The worst politician in this place and the kind of person who gives politicians generally a bad name is the politician who speaks against a Bill and then votes for it. In the eyes of the public, that is a human being who is accurately described as a hypocrite. One of the things that we are able to do in this place is to record a vote. We are not here to talk about speeches or words-words are the cheapest commodity in this place. We could get up here and speak forever. But what is the thing that impacts itself on the 15 million human beings whom we govern? It is not our words, it is our votes; it is whether a matter passes or fails to pass this Parliament. On this Bill which betrays every ex-serviceman and woman, members of the Opposition have the same opportunity of doing what Senator Missen is going to do, namely, to vote for the deferral of this Bill. We want to oppose it outright, but to try to accommodate the Opposition we are merely moving for the deferral. Our telex message continues: (2) Democrats announced total opposition to the Bill in the Senate. (3) Liberals refuse to support Democrat opposition and suggest useless amendment to pass Bill and review it in six months-- that is the sunset clause-- (4) Democrats strenuously object to this betrayal of ex-servicemen and women and offer to challenge the Opposition to a deferral until the Budget session in keeping with the express promise made to veterans by the Minister. Here we have the most extraordinary circumstances where a Labor Minister has promised veterans organisations, in good faith I am sure-I have a great admiration for the integrity of Arthur Gietzelt, the Minister-that the Bill will be deferred until there has been a chance for discussions to be held. The Liberals are refusing to accept even that. The telex continues: (5) Liberals refuse this compromise. The Democrats, trying to find some solution, then said: (6) Democrats suggest alternative by sending the Bill to a committee. It would not be the first time that the Liberals have agreed to send a Bill to a committee. It is a very appropriate, respectable and desirable course in many instances. As the telex stated: Liberals refuse this compromise. Then, late on Thursday, at 10 minutes to six, knowing that the Senate would rise at 6.30 p.m., the Bill was brought on. I say to the ex-servicemen's organisations: Bill brought on late yesterday where there was obvious collusion between Liberal and Labor to push Bill through in half an hour. That is the absolute truth. I and Senator Macklin were approached by the leaders of both parties to see whether the Democrats would expedite the passage of the Bill before the Senate rose that night. That is a fact. My friend Senator Macklin will support me on that. I do not think that Senator Button or Senator Chaney would deny it. I can understand the Liberal Party's problem. Academically, I respect its reasons for wanting the Bill out of the way, because the House of Representatives was still sitting last Thursday night. I hope that every veterans' organisation is listening carefully to the following words: If the Democrats had acceded to the request to dispose of the Bill last Thursday night- Senator Withers —So it could go back to the House of Representatives. Senator CHIPP —Yes. We were informed that the Government was prepared to accept the Liberal Party amendment. In other words, the Bill would have been passed by the Senate with an amendment that the legislation be reviewed in six months time. That would have been accepted by the House of Representatives and the whole matter would have disappeared for six months. But in that six months the effects of this Bill would have been immediately operative. In other words, every ex-service man and woman would have lost the onus of proof provision. War widows would have been affected, as has been described by Senator Macklin, from the day of proclamation-which would have been last Friday. There would have been nothing that this chamber could have done to revive that Bill unless the initiative came from the Government. So I suggest that the word 'collusion' is not inaccurate. To continue: (9) Democrats called their bluff-- the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-- and threatened to keep talking on the Bill and every clause. Finally: Liberal and Labor gave in and Bill was adjourned. The Democrats dare the Government, if it wants to further collude with the Liberals and pass this Bill tonight with the amendment, to call back the House of Representatives next week, just to pass this Bill. I dare it to have the effrontery to do that, just so it can put the boot into ex-service men and women, whom this Bill betrays. I concluded my telegram to the ex-service organisations by saying: Respectfully urge you and your members to urgently contact Mr Peacock, Leader of the Opposition, and Liberal senators in your States today and over the weekend. Apparently, judging from the interjections by people such as Senator Walters and others, the ex-service organisations have not let us down. The telegram states: The Bill will be resumed on Monday. Unless this support is forthcoming Democrats will be swamped by Labor, Liberal and Nationals and benefits of veterans will be taken away. Don Chipp,Leader of the Australian Democrats Michael MacklinAustralian Democrats spokesperson on veterans affairs Today I have received a telegram from Bruce Ruxton who would not be described as a member of the Democrats. Senator Hill —Do you support him? Senator CHIPP —I am proud to acknowledge that, apart from everything else, he has been a close personal friend of mine for 25 years, although we vigorously disagree on almost everything that is to do with politics. To make matters ten times worse, he barracks for Collingwood! I have received from him a telegram which states: Reference repatriation amendment legislation to be tabled in the Senate today. Whole of veterans community requests Bill to be deferred as was promised by the Government. Sunset clause as suggested by Opposition ridiculous . . . Who is saying this? Is it some sort of left wing fruitcake who is calling the Opposition ridiculous? Is it some left wing socialist that the Opposition loves to blackguard? No, it is Mr Bruce Ruxton, State President of the Victorian Branch of the Returned Services League. He states: Clause as suggested by Opposition ridiculous because once legislation is passed it will remain on the statute books. The quarterly meeting of the RSL Victorian State Council on Friday night passed unanimously motion of no confidence in the Minister for Veteran Affairs Senator Arthur Gietzelt and requested the Prime Minister to replace him forthwith. I dissociate myself from that because I think it is grossly unfair to Arthur Gietzelt. Arthur Gietzelt should not be the fall guy for this; the whole of the Cabinet should be held responsible. I just wonder about the blame that should attach to the permanent head of the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a result of this legislation. I know that one should not attack permanent heads in this place and I will not. I simply make that comment along with this further comment that of all persons whom I would like to see in charge of the Department of Veterans' Affairs the incumbent at the moment would be about the last person in Australia who I believe should be entrusted with that position. He may be competent in other areas such as immigration or whatever, but in my view he is not competent in this area. The telegram then states: Urge you to support Democrats in deferring Bill for six months. If Bill becomes operative for the next six months many veterans and widows will be discriminated against and will suffer hardship. Why is it that the cuts being introduced for the Department of Veterans Affairs are immediate when other cuts announced in the mini Budget are not? A political backlash will commence not only against the Government but against any party that supports the broken promises and lies of the Government. Bruce Ruxton State President RSL Victorian Branch That is what Mr Ruxton has said. I believe that my colleague Senator Mason, who will be speaking at the Committee stage of the Bill, has received similar telegrams from the State President of the New South Wales RSL. In fact, I believe that my colleagues have received similar telegrams from the Federal branch of the RSL and from all other branches of the RSL. I ask why this legislation, of all legislation, is being rushed through. If it were a matter of money-there is very little money in this measure in the short term-one could understand it. If the Liberals were saying, 'The deficit is too big, let us cut it', that would be a respectable point of view. But there is no money, or very little money, in it. The Liberal Party in this place last week voted to add $67m to the deficit by rejecting the sales tax Bills that were designed to catch people who are evading sales tax. I do not criticise the Liberals for doing that. However, if money is their motivation in supporting this Bill, where is the logic? If money is not their motivation, I simply ask: Where is the motivation? What is the reason? Why are the Liberals supporting the Labor Party on this matter? Therefore, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'consideration of this Bill be an Order of the Day for the first sitting day in August 1985'. I conclude my speech in the way I began it; that is by saying that, in my view, the most despicable thing a politician can do is to induce, seduce, or force people to risk their lives for their families and country by saying to them, 'If you do this we will promise everything for you and your kids when you come back', and, as soon as they come back, welshing or reneging on those promises. Kipling was quite devastating about lying, hypocritical, and deceitful politicians who did this. I will read into Hansard some of his famous words which are aimed directly at such politicians. They are about a soldier called Tommy Atkins who typified, in Kipling's mind, the kind of person who was sent overseas to fight for his country by politicians, and who was then betrayed on his return. Kipling wrote: You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all: We'll wait for extra rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace. For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' ''Chuck him out, the brute!'' But it's ''Saviour of 'is country'' when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool-you bet that Tommy sees! Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(5.42) —I would not have entered this debate on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 but for Senator Chipp's speech. One of the reasons I do so is that I am one of the few left in this chamber who would most likely be affected by the legislation before us. I understand that you would, Mr Acting Deputy President; as would Senator Hamer, who sits behind me, Senator Scott and a few others. I suppose that the Parliament in which we discuss these matters has changed from when I first entered it. I was going to say that when I first became a senator in 1966, ex-servicemen were quite common. However, I thought I had better not say that because whilst we may have been vulgar I do not think we were ever common. I could be a potential beneficiary of this legislation. I have no claim and never have claimed on the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I have not even applied for my war service home loan. That is not unusual amongst quite a number of us. I might put Senator Chipp right on a few things. I do not know how many of us joined up on some politician's promise that we were going to get war service home loans or repatriation benefits. Quite frankly, I did not know they existed. It was years after I was discharged that I found out they were available. We had other things on our minds in those days, partly staying alive and partly doing other things. Therefore, it is most unjust of Senator Chipp to go on about despicable politicians double-crossing and betraying ex-servicemen. I do not feel the least bit betrayed. What I have found despicable over the years is the politician who has attempted to ride to power and get votes on the back of the ex-serviceman. It has been one of the most despicable practices of politicians since the war finished. I speak of those who suck up to ex-servicemen's organisations and other interest groups in the community, making promises they know they cannot deliver and for which they have no financial responsibility. That is what I find despicable. The other thing that I think ought to be put on the record is that what the Opposition is about in putting down its amendment for a sunset clause is what I would have thought was the sensible way of going about it. This will allow all those organisations who have objections to this Bill to have a six-month period to put those objections to the Government, the Opposition, the Democrats and Senator Harradine. What is wrong with that? If those objections cannot be met, if they cannot be answered properly by the Government, in six months' time when the Government brings back a Bill it will have to have some very good reasons why this Parliament ought to pass it. What is wrong with that? Senator Chipp says we are taking away all these entitlements. Nobody has an entitlement at the moment. They might have a claim, but nobody has an entitlement which is being taken away. The most our sunset clause is going to do is to put that claim in suspension for six months. I do not think that is a very grave injustice. Senator Missen —It may terminate them. Senator WITHERS —Senator Missen always has his own ideas and he is entitled to them, but I cannot see that we are working any injustice by saying to the Government that it has six months in which to put this into the veterans' entitlements legislation and then to let us see the new Bill as a whole. Therefore, I fail to see why we should go along with some cheap grandstanding by Senator Chipp. I take grave exception to despicable people riding on the backs of ex-servicemen for cheap political temporary gain. That is not a new event. Lord help us, we have been lectured since the war about how the politicians won the war, all sitting here in Canberra. I often wondered what 600,000 people were doing in uniform. That is the sort of thing we get from politicians: Their great contribution and all the rest of it. I say to Senator Chipp: Please do not try to burn me up. Do not try to burn up the sort of people I was with for so many years. We did not go off just to get a repatriation pension and we did not go off just to get a war service home loan. I do not claim any nobility for the reasons we went, but at least we did not go for those sorts of cheap, mercenary reasons. By taking that attitude, Senator Chipp insults me and lot of other people whom I spent a number of years with during the last war. I trust that he will cease to take that attitude. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.48) — The problem with which we are faced has been brought about by the fact that the Government included this measure-and one or two others, such as the measure in the Social Security Amendment Bill which relates to the family allowance-in its economic statement when, for one reason or another, it was inappropriate to handle them in that way. Over a number of years claimants for repatriation benefits believed-it is also the view of many of us, and we have all at one time or another been engaged in assisting veterans in their claims-that they were not being given a fair go. That was clearly so, particularly subsequent to the introduction of the 1977 amendments. All of us were relieved somewhat early this year, I think it was, when, in the case of the Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien, the High Court of Australia gave a very clear indication as to what the situation would be. It stated that in those circumstances where a veteran realised that he or she had a case but was not able to prove it or to present any information to the tribunal, upon which there could be developed a doubt that there was a connection between the disability and the war service, the situation should be resolved according to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Full Court decision in essence expressed what I believe we all find important and we all adhere to, namely, that the Parliament and the community do have a responsibility to adopt a generous attitude to the claims of veterans, those persons who served Australia in war. We all agree on that. The disagreement appears to be about whether this is the appropriate way to approach what is a problem perceived by the Government that is, a problem which it thinks was caused by the three to two decision of the High Court in the Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien. The Opposition has suggested a sunset clause for this legislation. The Australian Democrats, as I understand it-I have listened carefully to the debate thus far-are opposed to this legislation. On Thursday Senator Macklin outlined what I believed to be a reasoned approach on that aspect. The Democrats are now proposing that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill be deferred until August. I cannot see anything wrong with that. If people in this Parliament are concerned about the legislation why let the Bill through now? Why not wait? There is another view about this: The people concerned do not know what is happening or they are just finding out. I believe that we have two choices. We all agree-even the Government agrees in the second reading speech-that society does have a responsibility to adopt a generous attitude in respect of claims. What we appear not to agree about is the method of approach. It appears that the majority of the Senate-the Opposition, the Democrats and I-believes that in this legislation the Government is to a large extent undermining that principle of generosity. The Opposition desires a sunset clause to enable the veterans' organisations and individual veterans to have a say, to express their views. Then, at the end of six months, I assume the Government would be required to come back with certain legislation and if the evidence from veterans' organisation and individual veterans were such obviously the Parliament would not be prepared to adopt that legislation. But where does that get us? That situation gives the Government the whip hand. We have the whip hand now if we choose to exercise it. We can defer this legislation until the Budget session. That would give veterans' organisations the same opportunity that would be given them if we adopted the amendment proposed by the Opposition. What it would do further is very important. That is, it would allow the claims of veterans to continue. I know that many of these claims have been awaiting consideration for a considerable period of months-indeed, years in some cases. In all the circumstances, I will be voting for the amendment that has been moved by the Australian Democrats to defer this legislation until the August Budget sitting. I hope that the Senate will see its way clear to vote accordingly. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.56) —I support the amendment moved by Senator Chipp to defer the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. I will try to stress to Liberal-National Party senators the seriousness of this matter because I do not believe that has really dawned on them yet. With all respect, Senator Withers, for whom I have a great deal of respect in many ways, not very long ago made one of the silliest and most thoughtless speeches I have ever heard in this place. He actually put up the preposterous idea that people may have gone to war because they were thinking about the benefits they would get afterwards. I would have thought that to raise that kind of red herring in a debate of this sort gets us to a reduction and absurdum which is quite absurd. When people come back from war service they have a right-I think this is really the point-to expect that the promises that were made to them will be honoured. I think Senator Withers has the boot on the wrong foot, as he has on some occasions in the past. The true interpretation of this, and what the Australian Democrats are interested in, is ensuring that when people come back from service their rights are not removed from them. This has a particular application to World War II veterans, but especially to people who were involved in the Vietnam war. It is a fact that people were, as the Liberal-National Party members well know, sent to the Vietnam war as conscripts, against their will, and exposed there to a situation which was quite unlike any previous war situation. That has a direct bearing on this legislation because many of those men are still young and many problems which might result from their service are yet to be manifest. I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment which investigated the subject of pesticides and the health of Australian Vietnam veterans. If we look back to the evidence that was given to that inquiry we will see that this Bill is nonsense. Page 52 of the report of that inquiry indicates that during a spraying program conducted by the Australian forces during 1967 and 1968, the original spraying team from the Australian hygiene squad exhibited symptoms of breakdown of mucous membrane, nose bleeds, ulceration of lips and conjuctivitis, among other things. On page 53 the Committee reported: . . . Written precautions were one thing, adherence to the safety measures was quite another. The protective equipment was hot and uncomfortable and, in addition, the prevailing opinion appeared to be that the herbicides were not toxic to humans. Of course, it is known now that the situation is different. For Senator MacGibbon's benefit, I am quoting from the report of which he was a signatory. It said: The Committee was also told that on occasion, the spraying teams were given minimal instructions in the safety precautions to be observed, and that protective equipment was not always supplied. I recall that evidence was given to the Committee again and again that a veritable cocktail of dangerous chemicals was sprayed into the tents of those young men in Vietnam. People were sitting in their tents wearing only shorts, because it was not appreciated at that stage what dangers there might be. It is known now that that cocktail of chemicals, especially in association, is only too likely to cause problems. It is those problems which will have a direct bearing under this legislation, because it is unfortunately the case that one cannot prove or call on anybody to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that those things have caused some health difficulty-perhaps even a serious one; perhaps even cancer-which one develops at a later time. Whilst that is the case, it is ridiculous, unfair and cruelly unjust of the Government to bring in this change of the onus of proof. That is what this Bill is about. It is to take away a reasonable situation where a tribunal can reasonably decide that something might be service-related and to place that onus of proof back on the serviceman or woman concerned. In these circumstances, that is a matter of some concern. It is not only the Vietnam war. Over the last few months the most ominous situation has been revealed concerning the Maralinga atomic bomb tests. This, of course, was a service matter. Can it be said that illnesses which arise over the next few years in people who were exposed to radioactivity at those tests are not service-related? It is a notorious fact that alpha radiation-that is, short nuclear radiation-in the form of dust lodged in the lungs and stomach, causes cancer and interestingly enough, after some three to four decades. So it can be expected that if Australian service men and women who were exposed to that situation at the time of those tests develop cancers, there may well be an association. But it is one thing for there to be an association, perhaps even in a large number of cases; it is another thing to expect those people to have to bear the onus of proof that that was service-related. I can see here a very cynical motivation on the part of the Government and, possibly, the people who see themselves as the future Government to get themselves off the hook, to have a situation in which they can say to ex-service men and women: 'Yes, this might have been caused by some service-associated problem, but you must prove it to us'. That is the crux of the matter. The Australian Democrats will not permit this to go by without comment. It is possible even now for the Liberal Party to change its tune on this matter. There is every reason for it to change its tune. The Liberals have said time and again in this place that the interests of ex-service men and women are something that they believe in, something that they will defend. Why are they not defending them in this case? I remember at the time of the Agent Orange inquiry that a statement was made-it was very freely quoted-that the Australian community believed that if there were a reasonable doubt, even a reasonable doubt, about some illness or injury or some future consequence being service-related, Australian veterans should be given every possible benefit of that doubt. The moment this Parliament goes away from that principle, I believe that we are betraying these people shamefully and demonstrably-because the betrayal is very evident. As I have said, from what is known about the Maralinga tests and about the Vietnam War, there are situations from which it is only too likely that service-related illnesses of serious consequence will arise. This amendment will conveniently prevent those people affected from claiming in relation to those illnesses. I echo Senator Chipp's point about the Returned Services League. Indeed, I have received a telegram from Sir Colin Hines, the State President of the RSL in New South Wales, in which he says: The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. The veterans are angry and disillusioned. We request your full support to the Democrats' proposal to defer any further consideration of this Bill to the Budget session. I do not know why, in light of all this response, from veterans organisations, in light of this concern in the community, and in light of the fact that this concern will go on and can only increase in weeks to come, the Liberal Party does not change its tune. It is quite possible. The world will not come to an end if the Liberals vote against the second reading of this Bill or if they vote to defer the Bill, preferably until the Budget session. Why not let the community have input to the Bill, and why not let these respectable, known people, people who know what they are talking about, have some input to the situation? We should not deny them that opportunity. If honourable senators wish to give them that opportunity, they should vote for our amendment. I commend it to honourable senators. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.05) —I thought that I should enter the debate on the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill because of some of the extraordinary allegations made by Senator Chipp in his contribution. I remind the Senate that we are dealing with one of the very contentious elements of a total mini-Budget which was brought in by this Government last week and which seeks the reduction of some $1,250m worth of government expenditure. The choices that the Government made are not the choices of the Opposition. The decisions which were made by the Government are not the decisions of the Opposition. The promises which the Government has broken are not the promises of the Opposition. The simple position which has been adopted by the Opposition on these matters is that it is the Government's mini-Budget. It was introduced by the Government with some very strong words, such as the statements that the recovery of the Australian economy would be at risk if these measures were not implemented and that certain decisions had to be taken. The Opposition has treated this package of measures as it has treated the Government's Budget; that is, as something which the Government will have, as something which is essential to the Government and as something which we may well disagree with in very many respects but which we will pass. We have admitted to only one exception in allowing the Bills related to the mini-Budget to go through without change. That exception is the Bill that we now have before us. What we plan to do ought to be understood. We propose, with respect to those provisions of the Bill which are contentious, that they should exist for only six months. This will occur if the amendment to be moved by the Opposition is supported. I understand from the Australian Democrats that, notwithstanding their amendment, they will support the amendment to be moved by the Opposition. We propose to move this amendment because those provisions have been brought forward by the Government in breach of clear undertakings given by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, and other spokesmen for the Government. Those spokesmen, the Prime Minister included, undertook to veterans' organisations that there would be consultation on the entitlement changes that the Government proposed. The Government has broken its word, and the Opposition condemns it for doing so. The Democrats are saying that the Opposition should prevent the Government from breaking its word. I can only say in response to that that if we set out to stop this Government from breaking its word, we would have to reject the whole of the mini-Budget, because there is a great deal in the mini-Budget, quite apart from the veterans' provisions, which is a clear breach of faith and promise. We propose that the Government be forced to face up to the commitments it has made to veterans. It will have to negotiate with them and it will have to bring fresh legislation into this Parliament in the Budget session. We will judge that legislation on the basis of discussions held, representations made and our detailed assessment of the legislation. I turn to Senator Chipp's dramatic and basically inaccurate representation of what has occurred. It is untrue to say, as he has said to all veterans' organisations, that the House of Representatives passed the Bill without Liberal opposition. The Liberal Party in the House of Representatives proposed precisely the same course as we propose here; namely, to ensure that relevant parts of the legislation could live for only six months. The Government used the guillotine in the House of Representatives. It used its majority to prevent any Committee stage debate and, hence, that amendment could not be pursued. An examination of the speech during the second reading debate by Mr Hodgman, who led on behalf of the Opposition, shows that our intention was made quite clear. He read the appropriate amendment into the record. Senator Chipp —Did you vote against it? It is as simple as that. Senator CHANEY —I do not have to worry about Senator Chipp's silly amendment. The fact of the matter is that the guillotine precluded the Opposition from pursuing the course which it set out to pursue, which was to move an amendment to this Bill at the Committee stage. Senator Chipp is indulging in theatrics in posing that question. I then find that the Australian Democrats are suggesting that there has been some collusion between the Opposition and the Government. I have heard a lot of pious lectures from Senator Chipp about the unreasonableness of the Opposition from time to time. I remind him that it is commonplace in this chamber, an almost daily occurrence, that items relating to the program are discussed between the Whips and the leaders. There was a very simple reason why Senator Button raised the passage of the legislation last Thursday with me and with the Australian Democrats. That simple reason was that the Government proposed to lift the House of Representatives last Thursday. It proposed that the House should go away on Thursday night and not come back. Senator Button came to us and told us that our amendment was accepted and that the Government hoped to pass the legislation with our amendment. I certainly saw no reason in those circumstances to stand in the way of the passage of the legislation if that was possible. The reality of the matter is that in the normal course of dealings between leaders that matter was raised with Senator Chipp. It was Senator Chipp's entitlement to continue to prolong the debate if he wished. No objection was raised to that course, and that is precisely what happened. It may well be that the Government will choose to bring the House of Representatives back to deal with the amended Bill; it may choose not to. That is up to the Government. I have no idea how the Government will see its priorities in that situation. But there is something quite offensive in the interpretation that Senator Chipp tried to put on what happened last Thursday. I think that it is an inexcusable attempt to smear both the Government and the Opposition and I reject whole- heartedly what he said. I believe that Senator Chipp would be the first to object if the Government had raised with me the question of the passage of a Bill and I had said: 'I will not discuss that matter with you'. I simply indicate that, with respect to this or any other legislation, I will discuss it with the Government as I will discuss it with the Democrats and Senator Harradine, and it will be dealt with on its merits. The Government said last Thursday that it would accept the very stringent amendment that we put on the Government's Bill, which destroys its efficacy after only six months, and that of course we regard as a positive move by the Government. With respect to what we are dealing with here-and I, unlike Senator Withers, do not have the advantage of speaking in this debate as an ex-serviceman-I can only say that it is a matter of the very deepest concern to the Opposition that there should be fair dealing with the ex-service men and women of Australia. I believe it is a matter of high moral responsibility, and a matter which I certainly take very seriously and which I know my colleagues take very seriously. I would simply say to this Senate and to the ex-service community of Australia that if they examine our approach, they will see that we approach this matter not as the Democrats, who are rushing around trying to get their 8, 9 or 10 per cent of the vote, but as people who are trying to face up to the responsibility of being the alternative government of Australia. We have approached the mini-Budget in a principled way. That prevents us from picking and choosing between the measures which the Government has put forward. We despise the fact that the Government has breached its undertaking to ex-servicemen. We will with respect to this Bill put forward an amendment in the Committee stage which will guarantee that the Government will have to treat the ex-service community in the way it undertook to do. We will judge the legislation that is brought forward in the Budget session on its merits. If a single ex-serviceman or ex-servicewoman has been disadvantaged in the interim, we will require that the amending legislation look after that disadvantage, and that any changes which are made in the Budget session apply to anyone who might have been disadvantaged under this legislation. I predict that there will be variations between what the Government proposes to do in August and September and what the Government is bringing forward in this session. It will be the altered provisions that we will ensure will apply to ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen, if there are any who are disadvantaged in the interim. I am sorry that this debate has been seen as such a wonderful opportunity for grandstanding. I think that it has led Senator Chipp to shave the truth with respect to what he has said about what occurred in the Senate on Thursday. I regret that, and I reject it on behalf of the Opposition. I say to the ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen of Australia: There will be an opportunity for you now to take advantage of the avenue we are providing to assist on consultation with the Government. We will carefully consider your views and our attitude to any legislation in the Budget session will be coloured by our assessment of what is right in the light of representations made by you and by your organisations. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.15) —If ever we needed an example that we should follow carefully everything that is brought before the Senate we have just had that example. I wish to say one or two things to express my feelings concerning this matter. It seems to me that, because of a failure to get an understanding on Thursday, we are about to do something that I think we will all regret. The Australian Democrats ought to have another think about how they proceed with their amendment and what they do about the Opposition's amendment. Senator Chipp —It doesn't matter. You have got the numbers. This Bill will pass tonight because you have got the numbers. Senator GEORGES —I do not want in any way to be provocative but it is my understanding that there was a possibility on Thursday for the matter to be resolved so there could be some reconsideration, some discussion and some debate about it for a number of months before the Budget session. Apparently, that attempt has failed but we are in a position where it could still pertain. As I have earlier said, matters come before the Senate of which we are not aware. One could say that every member of this Senate should be aware of and should carefully consider everything that is likely to be brought before this place and have it discussed in the party rooms at length. But we have to appreciate that there was not much time for anyone to do anything about debating these very important issues. I discussed with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) this matter about the possible reversal of the onus of proof. At the time I spoke to him about it I know that he was firmly against it. The Minister, through no fault of his own, is not present in the Senate this week. I find it extraordinary that he will now have to bear the full odium of what is being done. But I know his strong views. I know the commitment he made to the returned servicemen and I know what my view is. I listened carefully to Senator Withers's contribution to the debate. He made the point that men did not go to fight because they expected something in return when they came back. He is quite correct. Unlike Senator Chaney, I and some others are of that generation of people who could have served but did not for a variety of reasons. But there is a position taken by people who did not serve-that is, that all that the Repatriation Act seeks to do for the ex-servicemen up to this point is extend to them a privilege of our society. If we are to go to war we have to bear the full responsibility for those who suffer. If we continue to wage war-I and many other honourable senators are much against that-we have to accept that responsibility. Let us consider that before we take any aggressive action if we decide to go to war. Sometimes these decisions are thrust upon us, but if we decide to go to war we have to accept the full financial responsibility for those who serve, even if they go of their own volition and they do not require any support when they come back. The Senate now finds itself in difficulties. The Government certainly finds itself in difficulty with this proposition. No matter how expensive it may prove to be, we have to bear the expense of giving the veterans the benefit of the doubt. We should not place upon them the burden of the onus of proof especially when, in many circumstances, their records are not available. They have been lost or the veterans left the Services at the time that they were discharged wanting to get out of it as quickly as possible. In many cases, they signed their rights away only to discover years later that they needed support and understanding. Senator Chipp raised something that presents a difficulty for members of larger political parties; the disciplines which are imposed upon us. The disciplines are that we may think and speak differently, yet not vote accordingly. That is the problem of the disciplines of a party. The problem on our side is that we are caught up in a major move by the Government to reduce expenditure and within it all is this cash- Senator Chipp —There is no money involved in it. Senator GEORGES —There is, as far as I can gather. While this debate was going on I asked what money was involved. Apparently, a considerable amount of money may be involved. That money may be the entitlement of ex-service people, which is all the more reason why we should be careful about it. If there is some way out of this bind, I suggest that we find it. I cannot see it. The proposition is before us, and the House of Representatives is no longer sitting. I will not go back and try to apportion blame, as Senator Chaney has apportioned blame. I can see a way; I hope other senators can, especially the Australian Democrats. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.22) —I rise to speak briefly. I express my disappointment, and I am sure the disappointment of a lot of people, that Senator Withers, finding himself bereft of a defence for the Liberal Party, resorted to personal attack, and not just a moderate personal attack but a vitriolic personal attack, on a fellow ex-serviceman. I find that behaviour reprehensible. It is the sort of behaviour I have come to expect in this place when a speaker no longer has any right or justice in the argument he is trying to put on behalf of his Party. I guess it is to be expected that that will happen from time to time. The other thing that has impressed me is that there are people on both sides of this chamber with a sense of justice and fair play who have been willing to make it quite clear that they disagree with the actions being taken by their parties. I think that is a fair indication that this Senate tonight will be rolled by the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. I make a last plea to all senators to support the amendment moved by Senator Chipp, as distinct from the amendment moved by the Liberal Party. There is a very clear distinction between those amendments, and it is this: The effect of Senator Chipp's amendment is that returned service people will not suffer as a result of this Senate's actions tonight. The result of the passing of the Liberal Party amendment is that the returned service people will suffer for the next six months. During those six months the Liberal Party will be able to hoist the Labor Party with its own petard. That is the purpose of the Liberal Party amendment. Let it be loudly and clearly understood throughout the electorates that this is a selfish, political move on the part of the Liberal Party to make the electors, the returned service people, suffer for the next six months, whereas if the Liberal Party were willing to support Senator Chipp's amendment-- Senator MacGibbon —It is no wonder the Western Australians got rid of you. Senator JACK EVANS —I would like Senator MacGibbon to listen if he has not been here for the rest of the debate, as this is a critical point. If honourable senators support Senator Chipp's amendment, it will have exactly the same effect on the legislation, but the returned services people will not suffer in the meantime. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(6.24) —I think that by now all senators who have an interest in this matter have had an opportunity to express their views, and the Government has noted them. As previously indicated, the Government is prepared to accept the sunset clause provision which is to be moved in the Committee stage by Senator Collard. A further amendment was foreshadowed by Senator Chipp. This amendment is not acceptable to the Government. Senator Chipp —My amendment is to the second reading. Senator RYAN —We will be opposing that, too. Under the sunset clause, the amendments proposed to section 47 of the Repatriation Act will operate for six months only. A lot has been made during the debate about whether there were commitments to consultations. I would like to clarify that matter at this point. Following discussions between Sir William Keys, the National President of the Returned Services League, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) the Government has accepted that there were misunderstandings within the ex-service community about consultations on changes to the Repatriation Act. The Government had given no undertakings about consultations on legislative changes to give effect to the May expenditure statement. The Government will honour its commitments to consult the ex-service community about the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, which the Government intends to make available later this week. The amendments affected by the sunset clause will be included in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. There will be a period of almost three months of consultation with ex-service organisations about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill as a whole, including the proposed amendments to section 47, before it is debated in the Parliament. Acceptance of the tangible clause is tangible evidence of the Government's commitment to consultation. It is also consistent with economic responsibility as it will preserve the saving of $36.8m as announced in the May statement. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chipp's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J.Haines, J. Missen, A. J.Harradine, B. Vigor, D. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D.Brownhill, D. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R.Coates, J. Primmer, C. G.Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G.Colston, M. A. Rae, PeterCooney, B. Ray, RobertCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A.Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B.Foreman, D. J. Sheil, G.Georges, G. Short, J. R.Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W.Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hearn, J. M. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walters, M. S.Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W.Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G.Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O.Knowles, S. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E.Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D.Brownhill, D. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R.Childs, B. K. Missen, A. J.Coates, J. Parer, W. R.Collard, S. J. Primmer, C. G.Colston, M. A. Puplick, C. J. G.Cooney, B. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Devlin, R. Reynolds, M.Durack, P. D. Richardson, G. F.Elstob, R. C. Robertson, E. A.Evans, Gareth Ryan, S. M.Foreman, D. J. Scott, D. B.Georges, G. Sheil, G.Giles, P. J. Short, J. R.Grimes, D. J. Sibraa, K. W.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Tate, M. C.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hearn, J. M. Townley, M.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Jones, G. N. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G.Knowles, S. C. Zakharov, A. O. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J.Haines, J. Vigor, D.Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Sitting suspended from 6.39 to 8 p.m. Clause 1 agreed to. Clauses 2 to 15-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 16 (Hearing and determination of claims, &.). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.01) —I raise a couple of questions with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in regard to clause 16 that deals with the reversal of the onus of proof. Firstly, for what reason was the date 12 November 1958 chosen? Secondly, in relation to diseases that do not have a known cause, how will provisions concerning them operate with regard to the onus of proof? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.02) —I am advised that the date that Senator Macklin has questioned, 1958, was chosen because it was 40 years after the end of World War I, 1918. Regarding diseases of unknown cause, some evidence of a connection with war service will be required. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.03) —The proposal is to alter the section by inserting essentially a couple of words 'reasonable hypothesis'. The Government has made it very clear in its explanatory memorandum that the veterans will now have to actually bring forward a connection between the disease and the war cause. This is the major alteration proposed to the legislation. I would like the Minister to respond in regard to the difficulties we are having in the determination of Vietnam veterans' problems, many of which are still under investigation. In terms of medical research, there still seems to be an enormous amount of confusion and discussion, at least in medical journals here and in the United States, as to the relationship between war action and any of the fairly wide range of symptoms which Vietnam veterans have been presenting at hospitals. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.04) —Senator Macklin's assertion is not quite right. Evidence in relation to the illness can come from a number of sources. It can come from the claimant or from an investigation by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and it can be by official notice by specialist decision-makers. If there is no evidence from any of these sources the claim cannot succeed. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.04) —Is it intended to rule out those areas which have been accepted until now where it is claimed that there is no connection between the disease and war? For many reasons, perhaps because the veterans do not have access to medical research and are not, or cannot afford to be, represented by people who do, they will, in fact, be unable to get any repatriation benefits under this proposed new sub-section. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.05) —Senator Macklin's surmise is not right. As I said in reply to his previous question, the veteran can use a number of sources of information in establishing a claim. Given that there is a range of them, some of those at least would be available to any veteran. Any veteran can seek advice from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I believe that any veteran seeking to establish a claim would have access to an appropriate medical specialist. I cannot conceive of a situation in which that would not be the case. I think I can clarify the matter for Senator Macklin by repeating for him the statement of the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) in his second reading speech in which he said: . . . in the determination of claims for disability and war widows' pension the legislation continues to protect the legitimate claims and rights of the veteran community. The Act will continue to provide that the requirement to submit evidence in support of a claim for pension shall not be taken to impose any onus of proof on a claimant. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will continue to have statutory responsibility for investigating relevant matters where a claim for pension is made. The Act will continue to provide that, in determining any claim, a determining authority is required to act according to substantial justice and the merits and all circumstances of a case. The Act will continue to take account of difficulties that lie in the way of ascertaining facts for any reason attributable to the effects of the passage of time, including on the availability of witnesses, or to any deficiency in official records. Clause agreed to. Clauses 17 to 68-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 69 (Application of amendments of section 47 of Repatriation Act). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.07) —There was some discussion with regard to clause 69 during the second reading stage. I seek now from the Minister some clarification as to the problems which seem to exist with regard to sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 69 and also with regard to sub-clauses (3), (4), and (5), but in a separate category. I will take sub-clause (1) first. I ask the Minister to respond as to what precisely will happen in the implementation phase on or after 15 May 1985, which, after all, is the date set down in the legislation. I raise the problem that seems to be evident if one reads these clauses. I refer to claims which are already in the system, some of which date back quite a long time, as anybody who has had anything to do with the veterans knows, and which remain undetermined at that date, that is, 15 May. What precisely will happen to them as a result of sub-clause (2) of clause 69? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.08) —The answer to Senator Macklin's question is that claims lodged before 15 May will be decided after the commencement of this legislation on the present standard of proof, subject to the O'Brien case modification-the requirement that some reasonable hypothesis must be raised. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.09) —In other words, the Minister is saying that the new procedures will apply to the claims which are already in the system, because that is essentially the O'Brien case. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.09) —The modification introduced into the situation by the O'Brien case is that there be some reasonable hypothesis. That is the sole variation from the previous criteria. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.10) —It is now substantiated and on the record that clause 69 is retrospective and will have a punitive effect on people who have claims lodged under the present system. I want that recorded so that those who are voting on it know what they are voting on. I now ask the Minister the number of claims this clause would cover retrospectively. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.10) —That information is not available at the Committee stage. I will take the question on notice. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.11) —It is extraordinary that we are engaged in passing a Bill which, it has just been admitted, is retrospective with regard to claims lodged under the present system, yet we have no understanding and no knowledge of how many people will be affected by the legislation. As I understand it-certainly I know that in my own State of Queensland we have had a great deal of difficulty in recent times because of an increased number of claims lodged-we could very well be looking here at anything in excess of 20,000 claims. It seems to me to be extraordinary that we do not have details of the number- Senator Missen —Fifty thousand is suggested by the people who have written to me. Senator MACKLIN —That is right. I know that the number is much much higher than I suggested. I was making a conservative estimate. I think the figure is at least 20,000, from my knowledge of the system at the moment. I am not blaming that on the Government. It has been a problem that has occurred in the repatriation system for some time. As the Government has acknowledged, in recent times there has been an increase in the number of applicants under a number of headings. I would have thought that we would have had the number available as this clause is retrospectively to apply to people who currently have claims lodged in the system. I point out that even if the Opposition's amendment is carried, the effect will still apply if the claims of those people are determined within the next six months. Some people could have had claims lodged in the system possibly upwards of four or five years. As the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, would know from his experience as Opposition spokesperson on veterans' affairs, that is not necessarily unusual. Hence we are saying to people whose claims have been working their way through the system that they will now find, at this very late stage of the whole operation, that they will have imposed upon them a new onus of proof. Even if one supports the legislation it seems to me to be excessively harsh that this clause should apply to the people who currently have claims lodged in the system. As I will raise during the consideration of clause 70, I believe that it will probably also apply to people who might appeal at a later stage. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.13) —It is of interest that the submission sent to us today by General Whitelaw of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association contains this paragraph: From advice received from a DVA source, it has been estimated that up to the current financial year 27,000 claims were outstanding and that in the current year up to 15 May 1985, 35,000 more claims have been received and are outstanding. It may be however that there are in excess of 50,000 claims awaiting determination. Since many of these claims are of long standing, 18 months being the understood time from claim to determination, from past DVA performance it is not likely many of these claims will be determined in the two to three week period before all outstanding claims must be determined to avoid being caught by s. 47 (2) as amended. I ask the Minister whether she would regard that as a fair statement. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.14) —The Government does not accept the claim that the Bill is retrospective legislation, or that an onus of proof will be imposed upon the claimant. The difference between what will happen after the legislation has been passed and what has happened prior to it is very small, namely that claims will require some hypothesis of a connection between the disease and war service. That will apply to claims that have not yet been determined. However, the number speculated upon by Senator Macklin is not supported by the officer. A precise number will be sought. I point out to the Committee that the claims by Senator Macklin about reverse onus of proof and retrospective effects are quite unjustified, as the only modification is that claimants will need to establish some hypothesis of a connection between the disease and war service. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.15) —I thought before that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) had admitted the proposition but now she seems to be going back on that. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of the legislation, the changes in this legislation will actually apply to those people who are already in the system. I am not quite sure how the Minister can say that that is not retrospective. The people who are currently in the system are going to have to come up with a different standard of proof from the one which they had when they entered the system. Some of those applications, as the Minister well knows, are delayed way beyond anything to do with those people. In a system as big as the repatriation system it would be unusual if problems did not occur. The Minister well knows that problems do occur. Files are lost, appointments with medical officers are unable to be kept because medical officers are otherwise engaged, people seek a second opinion and sometimes a third opinion, files travel up and down the system and if a veteran is ill advised with regard to filing an additional claim that can sometimes short-circuit the whole business so that it starts at the beginning again. There are a thousand and one things which can go wrong, none of which the veteran has any control over. It seems to me to be grossly unfair, regardless of the merits of the legislation-I wish to put that to one side-that the people actually in the system should have this imposed upon them. In the normal course in terms of changing legislation, it does not apply retrospectively in those types of cases. I thought that this Government, in terms of the types of claims it makes about these areas, would have been a government which would not have sought to go backwards in that way even if it did wish to bring forward a new policy item. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.17) —I point out that there is reason to believe that in the case of the majority of claimants the required hypothesis of a connection will be established. In most cases that will probably be the case, so that those people will not be disadvantaged in any way by the legislation. I also repeat that the implication of Senator Macklin's remarks on several occasions has been that the claimants will have to establish the proof. That is not the case. It is possible for an investigation by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to establish the connection. The new requirement-the modification-will apply to claims not yet processed, but those claims will not be subjected to any unreasonable requirement. However, the requirement that they will be subjected to is that there be established some hypothesis of a connection between the disease or the complaint and war service. Clause agreed to. Clause 70 (Application of amendments of section 107VG of Repatriation Act). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.18) —I raise the same types of questions with regard to clause 70. This clause looks at the review by the Veterans' Review Board, the new tribunal instituted by the legislation that went through this chamber at the end of last year. I would like to know the number of reviews currently before the Veterans' Review Board. I hope we can have better information than we had in regard to the determinations before the Repatriation Commission. With regard to those reviews, I also ask the Minister what is intended by clause 70 (1) with regard to appeals from the Commission. In other words, if the Commission appeals, does that then come under the new standard of proof that is required or under the old standard of proof which was required when people went through the system and had their determination made in the first place? These are appeals and are not, in fact, determinations. Undoubtedly, that appeal in many cases came from the Commission. However, I am very much interested in Commission appeals and what type of effect they have with regard to determinations. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.19) —In response to Senator Macklin's request about the number of reviews, the exact number is being sought. In response to his query about the appeals, if the Repatriation Commission appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I say that the same standard will apply as was applied at the Veterans' Review Board. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.20) —So, is the Minister saying that if the Commission appeals under sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause 70 the standard which applied at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will actually be applied again at that review procedure? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.20) —I am advised that the Commission does not appeal to the Veterans' Review Board; it is the claimant who appeals against the Commission's decision. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.21) —Just to get some idea of the scope of this area that we are discussing, I again draw attention to the submission from the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association to us today. The comment was made that thousands of reviews are pending before the Veterans' Review Board. Do the Minister's advisers know whether that is a correct statement? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.21) —There are over 29,000 claims awaiting primary determination and about 15,000 awaiting primary determination and assessment. The Veterans' Review Board has about 9,000 awaiting decision regarding entitlement and in excess of 3,000 awaiting decision with regard to assessment. Clause agreed to. Clause 71 (Application of amendments to reviews by Administrative Appeals Tribunal). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.22) —This question is similar to the last and relates to reviews by the AAT to which the Commission can appeal. I ask the Minister: What standard of proof applies to an AAT review of a VRB decision? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.22) —As I informed the Committee previously, the standard of proof for the AAT is the same standard that was applied at the Veterans' Review Board. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.23) —So, is the Minister saying in terms of clause 71(3) that outstanding applications for review will be dealt with under the same standard or the new standard? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.23) —Senator Macklin's initial question concerned what standard of proof would apply if the Commission appealed to the AAT. In addition to the information I gave him earlier I point out that clause 71(3) provides that the O'Brien modifications to the standard of proof will be applied by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the same manner as they are to be applied by the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.24) —So, is the Minister essentially saying that clause 71(3) overrides 71(1) and 71(2) so that the new provisions will actually apply to all outstanding applications? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.24) —Clause 71(1) is subject to sub-clauses (2) and (3). So Senator Macklin's suggestion is not right. They will be qualified by different provisions from the rest of 71(1). Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.25) — The question I raised concerned the fact that clauses 71(1) and 71(2) are subject to clause 71(3); hence the outstanding applications for review will be dealt with under the new structures and not under the old structures. Basically, we have a bit of a subterfuge going on in clause 71(1), whereby we think we are getting away with it, but in clause 71(3) it is made fairly clear that this arrangement will be at the behest of the new interpretation which is sought to be imposed upon the Act, that is the minority opinion of the High Court with regard to the O'Brien case. I think that is precisely the type of thing that the veterans groups have been concerned about. The veterans groups themselves would like to have had more time to see what was actually going to happen in this area rather than the hasty operation that they are now confronted with. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory Minister for Education)(8.26) —In summary, clauses 71(1) and 71(2) will be subject to clause 71(3). That is, the same standard of proof will apply subject to the modification of the O'Brien case. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clause 72. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(8.27) —I move: Page 26, after clause 71, insert the following new clause: Cessation of operation of certain provisions '72.(1) Section 16, sub-sections 17(2), 19(2), 21(2), 23(2) and 24(2), sections 25 and 32, part IV, sub-sections 54(2) and 61(2) and sections 69, 70 and 71 shall cease to be in force at the expiration of 6 months after the commencement of this Act. '(2) When provisions of this Act cease to be in force by virtue of sub-section (1), the relevant Acts shall have effect as if those Acts had not been amended by those provisions. '(3) After the expiration of 6 months after the commencement of this Act, the relevant Acts apply, in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), to and in relation to- (a) decisions of the Commission in respect of claims for pension where consideration of the claims by the Commission commenced after the expiration of that period; (b) decisions of the Veterans' Review Board in respect of reviews of decisions of the Commission referred to in paragraph (a); and (c) decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of reviews of decisions of the Commission referred to in paragraph (a) or reviews of decisions of the Veterans' Review Board in substitution for decisions of the Commission so referred to. '(4) In this section, ''relevant Acts'' means the Acts referred to in section 65.'. I will not canvass all the arguments. To the contrary, I will be very brief. The subject has been canvassed well in the second reading debate and I think the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Chaney, on behalf of the Opposition and as the last speaker in the second reading debate, pulled it all together quite well. Clause 72 would be the sunset clause to the relevant clauses; that is, all those pertaining to section 47. It provides that, at the end of six months, unless further legislation comes into this chamber, after consultation with the ex-service organisations, the amended section 47 will revert to the existing section 47. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(8.28) —I rise merely to say that I will support this amendment. I regard it very much as the second best arrangement. I think the performance of the Minister at the table, particularly, has made it very clear that we ought to have adjourned the debate and got an idea of what is going on here, but we are not getting much of an idea. The amendment which has now been moved by the Opposition, which I believe is the second best proposal, may be quite effective if the House of Representatives is not called back for the quite outrageous proposal of doing in the eye the pensioners who have been caught by the changes to the Act. If the Government calls back the House of Representatives for that purpose, be it on its own head. I hope that it will not do that and that we will therefore be able to carry through at least until August knowing that people will not be deprived before that time of the opportunity of having their cases heard. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(8.29) —I indicate on behalf of the Australian Democrats that we will reluctantly support this amendment. I think the problems that are likely to arise are many. A six-month sunset clause could cause considerable difficulties whichever way the legislation might go at the end of six months. There is not much point in rehearsing many of those problems but I am particularly concerned about a couple of groups. One is those whose determinations fall due during the next six months, because they will be subject to this legislation regardless of what happens at the end of that time. Secondly, I am concerned about those who become war widows within the next six months. Under the 40-year operation provided in this legislation they will find that their lack of entitlement will continue for the rest of their lives. It will not cease at the end of the six months. It seems to me, if the relevant provision is removed at the end of that six-month period, an unduly onerous burden will fall on to that group of people within the next six months. I think it is a pity that we have had to go down this track but I indicate on behalf of the Democrats that we will be supporting the amendment reluctantly. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.30) —There is one point on which I seek clarification from the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), in view of what Senator Missen has said-that even though the House of Representatives might not be called back until the Budget session, a great deal of damage will be done. The Budget session is only three months from now, and the sunset clause has a provision of six months. I would imagine that if this then comes into operation in August, during those ensuing months enormous damage will be done, because this will begin to operate as law. Having done so, it will begin to involve those many thousands of people that the Committee stage of this Bill has already revealed. We have established that many thousands of people, some of whom have waited for lengthy periods to have their cases resolved, will probably have their cases grind to a halt during that phase of August-September-October. Is that not the case? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(8.31) —Senator Mason's rather melodramatic embroidering of the situation is certainly not the case. What will happen once the legislation is in place is that claims to be determined will need to be accompanied by the notification, the hypothesis of some connection. So many of them presumably will be satisfactorily processed, because it is presumed by the Government that in most cases such a hypothesis will be established. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(8.32) —It will not be satisfactorily concluded because of the new guidelines, whereas under the present ones and the past ones that would have happened. Proposed new clause agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Ryan) put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Peter McClelland, DouglasBjelke-Petersen, F. I. MacGibbon, D. J.Black, J. R. McIntosh, G. D.Bolkus, N. McKiernan, J. P.Brownhill, D. Maguire, G. R.Chaney, F. M. Missen, A. J.Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R.Coates, J. Primmer, C. G.Collard, S. J. Puplick, C. J. G.Colston, M. A. Rae, PeterCooney, B. Ray, RobertCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E.Crowley, R. A. Reynolds, M.Devlin, R. Richardson, G. F.Durack, P. D. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M.Evans, Gareth Scott, D. B.Foreman, D. J. Sheil, G.Georges, G. Short, J. R.Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W.Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C.Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Townley, M.Hearn, J. M. Vanstone, A. E.Hill, R. Walsh, P. A.Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S.Jones, G. N. Watson, J. O. W.Kilgariff, B. F. Withers, R. G.Knowles, S. C. Zakharov, A. O.Lajovic, M. E. Chipp, D. L. Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Evans, Jack Mason, C. V. J.Haines, J. Vigor, D.Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.40) —The Senate is debating the National Health Amendment Bill, which is one of two pieces of legislation related to health with which the Senate will be dealing this week. The other piece of legislation which will be dealt with later this week is the New South Wales peace package, which will be debated separately. The aims of the National Health Amendment Bill relate to pharmaceutical benefits. The Bill seeks to achieve two main aims. The first is to increase the general patient contribution for items on the pharmaceutical list from $4 to $5. The Bill's other purpose is to try to provide some means of coping with disagreements which may occur between a pharmaceutical manufacturer and the Department of Health, that is the Minister for Health, about the appropriate price to be charged for a pharmaceutical drug which may or may not appear, or which the manufacturer may want to appear, on the list of benefits. The Bill seeks to provide, where agreement is not possible, that the Minister may determine a special benefit which may determine the special patient contribution. This may provide a mechanism where in the case of disagreement there may still be some subsidy which may protect patients from the full cost of drugs, even in the event of disagreement between the Minister and a drug company. The Opposition does not oppose these measures but will move an in principle amendment related to the second reading of the Bill. Indeed, I now move: At end of motion add: ', but the Senate notes that this measure- (a) breaks yet another Government election promise-that being to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to those suffering from chronic illnesses or disabilities; and (b) in fact exacerbates the problems of the chronically ill and disabled.'. To return to the two provisions of the Bill to which I have just referred, the first relating to the proposal to increase the cost of pharmaceuticals is obviously a Government revenue measure but breaks a number of pre-election undertakings, to which I shall return in a moment. The other provision, which might occur in the event of disagreement between a drug company and the Government, is a sensible procedure which seeks to deal with price disagreements between the Government and drug manufactureres. It will fill a void that now exists where there are tough negotiations between a government exercising monopolistic powers and in which deadlocks can occur between this monopoly purchaser and the pharmaceutical manufacturers which are to no one's advantage. When I was responsible for this scheme, there were occasions quite often when drug companies and the Government were unable to reach agreement, and sometimes for defensible reasons on both sides of the argument. As things exist, this leads to the delisting of the drugs in question, with the elimination of any government subsidy. In these cases of disagreement, which hopefully are rare, the Government is now in a position to continue its subsidy, but the purchasers of the drugs will still have to make a special contribution in addition to their normal contribution. There are some other potential problems even with this sensible provision. I would be grateful if the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) could give us assurances on some of these matters. Used improperly, this could be a means of wreaking some kind of havoc in the drug market. I give the Minister an example of a drug which might cost, say, $20, where it was possible to engineer some disagreement on price and reach a deadlock. If that drug were then delisted and if the patient's benefit under the present provisions was only $5, the patient may end up paying a lot more money. That could be to the disadvantage of patients if a drug were not only expensive but also necessary for certain treatments. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some assurances about what might happen if a very high cost drug is delisted. In relation to the provision to increase the benefit charge from $4 to $5, this is a government revenue measure certainly, but it will also have some other effects to which we would like to draw the attention of honourable senators. The first effect is that all drugs presently listed which cost more than $4 but less than $5-there are quite a number of those drugs-will now become delisted. They will no longer be benefit items because they are less than the patient contribution. That has been standard practice. But this could well mean that there are other, additional costs to the patient who is the purchaser. For a start, the dispensing fee may rise from the present level of $2.13 for a listed drug to a level of $3.20 which is the available dispensing fee to a pharmacist for a non-listed drug. Secondly, the existing allowable mark-up which the pharmacist may apply to the listed drugs is 25 per cent but this could go as high as 66 per cent if the drug is delisted. Not only will those drugs falling between $4 and $5 cease to be benefits but in addition both the dispensing fee and the mark-up may add to the cost of the pharmaceutical in the hands of the patient. The only point I need to make, of course, is that it is optional whether or not the pharmacist chooses to pass on all those costs, but under the present pricing structures those are available. Because this is a busy week it is not my intention to delay the Senate long in indicating the position of the Opposition on this Bill. I would like to return to the amendment which we moved to the second reading motion. It is not so long ago that the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party in opposition. In 1982, when the then Liberal-National Government increased the patient contribution for pharmaceuticals by exactly the same percentage-25 per cent-as it is being increased now, Dr Blewett, the then Opposition spokesman, attacked the Liberal-National Government roundly and criticised it for the effect that this would have. In his speech he made a number of promises to the people of Australia. I have them here; I have the words that he used. In essence, he promised to ease what he thought was the unduly complex stratification of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In fact, he has not done so. That was the first promise and that has not been kept. Honourable senators will know that there are three classes of people involved. Dr Blewett, in opposition, said that that was too complex. He promised to fix that and he has not. He promised that the unemployed would qualify to get drugs in the free category, not in the middle concessional group. That promise has not been honoured and that promise is contained in the speech which he made in 1982. He made that promise but he has not kept it. He promised that the less well-off families would not be hit. Senator Townley —That's right. Those with a lot of children-they are the ones. Senator PETER BAUME —My colleague Senator Townley, who has had to provide pharmaceuticals for a lot of these people, points out with great accuracy that it will affect the people with many children. Particularly during winter when there are epidemics going around a lot of children might be sick at once and the drug bills can be crippling. The less well-off families like that should not be hit by the full 25 per cent increase. Dr Blewett pointed out that many of them are only just above the social welfare beneficiaries and income level. I remember that, in his speech, he drew attention to the inequities of sudden cut-offs, particularly for people in great need such as the people with these families. He promised that something would be done about those people. Nothing has been done. He promised that a Labor government would provide free pharmaceutical benefits to the social security category known as special beneficiaries. It is a relatively small group of people who miss out on other categories. Of course, nothing was done. The other promise he made was to develop a scheme to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to those who suffer from chronic illness. Where is that scheme? That promise also has not been honoured. Dr Blewett promised the world in opposition and criticised the then Government for increasing the cost of pharmaceuticals. We are not criticising the Government for making the increase today; we are merely saying that it sits rather badly with the cant and promises of 1982 which were not kept. We believe that, once again, the Labor Government raised expectations before the election and has failed, once in government, to honour the promises it made. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment in the terms I read out earlier. I indicate that the Opposition will not oppose this legislation. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.51) —The National Health Amendment Bill before us today contains two major changes. The first is the insertion of proposed section 85B which provides the mechanism for resolving a dispute between the Department of Health and a manufacturer who unilaterally increases the price of a product. The concept of a special patient contribution is introduced in clause 3. A person who requires drugs, over which a dispute has occurred and which remains unresolved, will be required to pay the difference between the price the Government would have paid and the manufacturer's actual price. The user is therefore required to pay the increased price. Senator Baume has already indicated that this could cause some problems. All users, including concessional beneficiaries and pensioners, apparently will be required to pay this contribution. Senator Baume indicated also that this burden could be quite considerable in some cases. The Government indicated in the second reading speech that to date the number of disagreements over pricing between manufacturers and the Government was fairly limited. What worries me about this piece of legislation is that it may be an excuse for a disagreement to occur. I hope that the legislation will not encourage disputes between the Department and drug manufacturers, because, at least on the surface, it appears to create some sort of disincentive to resolve difficulties in agreement on the list price. The second provision contained in the legislation is somewhat more contentious. This matter was raised by me on the night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down the statement. It is the provision in the legislation which increases the patient contribution for the cost of a pharmaceutical item from $4 to $5. I was not the only one that night who was concerned about the effects this will have on a particularly vulnerable section of the community-families with small children who can suffer quite chronic illnesses; elderly people who need a lot of medication; and so on. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia also expressed its concern that the increase in the patient contribution for each pharmaceutical benefit item will cause unnecessary hardship to certain groups in the community, including, of course, the chronically ill. The national President of the Guild, Jim Matthews, issued a statement saying: It is a matter of some regret that the patient contribution will rise from $4 to $5 on 1 July 1985, and that this will particularly affect the chronically ill, many of whom may require half a dozen or more prescriptions a month. Half a dozen or more prescriptions, which have gone up from $4 to $5, is quite a significant extra amount-$1 for each of those-for people who are on limited incomes to pay per month. They may not be pensioners or social welfare beneficiaries, but their incomes, gained from some other source, may be almost as low as that. Mr Matthews went on to express the hope that the Government would consider means of alleviating the hardship that this increase will bring. On the other hand, he did say that the Guild was relieved-indeed, I imagine most people were-that arrangements for pensioners and concessionary prescriptions have not been affected by the expenditure cuts announced by the Treasurer. He added that the increased patient contribution is a charge on the patient which merely reduces the amount the Government pays towards the cost of a pharmaceutical benefit. Senator Baume acknowledged that and made very little more of the point. I would suggest that reducing the amount the Government pays to a vulnerable section of the community such as this in a health care area such as this warrants more censure than simply to say that it is a cost cutting measure. Mr Matthews went on to say: The patient will now have to meet about three quarters of the cost of most prescription drugs compared with about 60% previously. He pointed out that the increase in the patient contribution would not result in any higher remuneration for chemists, who, I think quite rightly, feel a little touchy when these sorts of things increase in price. Sometimes the consumer has a tendency to blame them for the increase rather than the Government. Certainly, the increased price of pharmaceuticals from July onwards is not the fault of the individual pharmacist. As Mr Matthews pointed out, the people who are most affected are chronically ill people not on concessions or benefits. The worst effect on people will be on those who require regular medication, for example, to contain a diabetes problem, children who suffer from chronic asthma and so on, and people who for some reason have to take several medications concurrently even if it is only for a short time. That Government cut will save something like $40.3m a year and it will save it from a sick and vulnerable section of the community. I ask the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) whether the new special patient contribution and its corollary, the special patient benefit, will cause more difficulties for the pharmacists, who may well have to bear the administrative brunt of the amendments. If they will, I wonder why there is no provision in this legislation for higher remuneration for pharmacists. If they will not, there is no need for that to be included. I suspect that there could be some additional problem. The whole matter of payment to chemists is of considerable concern to the industry. It would be sad if this were to add another problem. I would like to raise at this point the matter of payments to pharmacists. There has been some concern within the industry about the delay in payments, particularly from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I received a letter a few weeks ago from a pharmacist in New South Wales. The letter is dated 3 May, although it did not get to me until some time after that. No doubt it had something to do with the Redfern Mail Exchange. In part the letter states: At the end of last year I submitted claims at approximately two weekly intervals at the specific request of Department of Health so that payments could be expedited. Below are the dates of lodgement of claims and receipt of payments. He listed four specific claims and dates of receipt of payment. The first claim was lodged on 10 November 1984 and payment was received on 17 December 1984. A claim was lodged on 30 November and payment was received on 29 January. The third claim was lodged on 17 December and payment was received on 24 January. Presumably Christmas got in the way. The next claim was lodged on 30 December and payment was received on 5 February. He went on to say: Today I received a prescription, returned from Department of Veterans Affairs where payment had been refused because the doctor had ordered repeats which were not allowed. This prescription, I dispensed on 24 December 1984, lodged on 30 December 1984 and will send with the next claim and be paid approximately the end of June 1985. I find the situation of payment of claims completely unacceptable as has been the case for some years, and believe the Government should be obliged to pay a penalty payment, similar to penalties applying to me if my employee's taxation deductions are not paid on time. In the present situation, late payments reduce my earnings. If I pay my accounts on time to obtain discounts from wholesalers then I must pay interest to the bank and if I wait for payment to arrive to save bank interest then I lose the wholesalers' discount. So he gets caught coming and going. He continued: I think you will find all pharmacists in a similar situation and I would be pleased if you are able to do something to rectify the situation. I would like the Minister to give some sort of update of what is happening when such situations arise with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There is also some concern-I would like some clarification on this-about the actual price paid for drugs purchased since a considerable number of the list actually cost, if my calculations are anything like correct, below the $5 payment. For example, there are some fairly unpronouncable names- Senator Grimes —Panadol's the easiest. Senator HAINES —I was going to choose paracetamol, because I can manage to pronounce that one, at $4.34; 300 milligram aspirin at $3.39; diazepam at $3.79; codeine phosphate with paracetamol at $3.69; diadoxin tablets at $3.09 and 100 grams sodium citro-tartrate effervescent granules at $4.43. Senator Peter Baume —It is the ones between $4 and $5 where the real problem comes in. Senator HAINES —That is right, but there are still some that are even less than that. There is something called oxazepam which is just over $4 and 40 milligrams of frusemide tablets at $4.87. I would like to know exactly what happens with those. As I understand it, any items which from 1 July 1985 cost less than $5 or the relevant concession, will no longer be on the national health list. I believe the dispensing pharmacist will, in the case of a non-concession prescription, simply charge the list price. However, if she wants to, she can charge a dispensing fee. To give an example using 40 milligrams of frusemide- Senator Peter Baume —Lasix; that is its other name. Senator HAINES —I am indebted to Senator Baume for that intriguing information. Whatever it is and whatever it is used for, it costs $4.87. It could end up costing the patient $6 plus if the pharmacist does not waive the dispensing fee, which I gather most do but it is not an essential practice. It seems that this is something of an anomaly and I would like some indication from the Government that a drug which costs less than $5 will not finish up costing more than $5 because of some other procedure inherent in the dispensing process. This is like something out of Alice in Wonderland and any clarification that the Government can give to a poor senator, and also a few patients, on this matter will be much appreciated. We intend to support the second reading amendment moved by Senator Baume because there is no question that the Government has broken yet another election promise, although I suggest it is not quite as bad as the promise it broke with regard to veterans. The promise broken in this legislation is the promise to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to those people who suffer from chronic illnesses or disabilities. As the rest of Senator Baume's amendment points out, this legislation in fact exacerbates the problems of the chronically ill and disabled. I will go further than that and say that it could place an intolerable burden on low and middle income families who are not in receipt of a pension or benefit and who, therefore, do not qualify for any sort of concession, who have a number of children one or more of whom may suffer from a chronic illness or who may come down, as the children are wont to do, with the normal childhood complaints, the normal seasonal coughs and colds and what have you that require some sort of prescription in order that the child can get relief. We will support the Opposition's amendment. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(9.05) —The National Party of Australia acquiesces in the passage of the National Health Amendment Bill and we support the amendment because in ever so small a way the Bill is a little step towards removing government from its involvement in the pharmaceutical industry. As we have just heard from Senator Haines, the Bill disadvantages quite a large section of the community, particularly the sick and the disadvantaged. I would like to run through a little of the history of the running gun battle really which has existed between the Government and the pharmaceutical companies over many years. It has resulted in a very slow increase in prices for drugs which, of course, has reduced their profits. Senator Crowley —Hear, hear! Senator SHEIL —I note that Senator Crowley says: 'Hear, hear!'. But it has been responsible for reducing the number of drug firms in Australia. It has reduced the number of drug manufacturers and the amount of drug research and development. The companies have been driven from the country because the Government has kept prices down to unrealistic levels. There have been years of negotiations between the pharmaceutical companies and the Government that have cost enormous amounts and meant endless submissions and lots of time wasted for everybody. All it has done is drive the drug firms business out of Australia. Of course, that could have defence connotations for the country should we ever become isolated. In fact, as part of this process, during the time that the role of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission was expanded not only was it allowed to make biological substances but it moved into the non-biological field. When I was previously a member of parliament the Government of the day even bought one of these run-down pharmaceutical companies so that it could operate it, and have a window into the pharmaceutical industry to get some idea of the costs-a role totally unsuited to government. I think that that drug firm has since been sold, but that shows how much involvement the then Government felt it needed in the pharmaceutical industry, an industry which it drove first to its knees and then on to its stomach. This legislation is a move in the right direction. Now that the Government has turned each chemist into a tax gatherer in the same way as the petrol tax has turned every garage proprietor into a tax gatherer, I wish that the Government would reduce the tax by the amount that it is going to collect. Then it would have a beneficial effect. The National Party is happy to acquiesce to the Bill. We support the amendment because of the people the Bill will disadvantage. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.09) —I am happy to hear Senator Sheil speaking again in such a vein in this place. I have not heard that since he was previously a senator. I am particularly interested to hear that the National Party of Australia sees the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals as another step down the track of getting the Government out of the pharmaceutical industry. I am not sure that all his colleagues would agree with that. I do not quite understand the logic of taking that view and then supporting the amendment, which apparently urges the Government to get back into the pharmaceutical industry. Senator Sheil —To look after the sick as it promised. Senator GRIMES —Senator Sheil and I are doctors. I thought all people who were prescribed drugs were sick. Maybe some are not, but usually the people in the medical profession claim that all are. Senator Walters —Do you want people to get up in this debate? Senator GRIMES —I am not saying anything about the Liberal Party speakers; I am talking about Senator Sheil who is taking a different view from that of the Liberal Party speakers in the debate tonight. I noticed that Senator Sheil was very careful not to cite the numbers of drug companies that have gone out of this country in droves. He cannot cite them because there have not been numbers leaving in droves. Senator Sheil talked about the drug companies reducing the amount of research. In fact, they hardly did any research, except that needed to provide scholarships for clever doctors like Senator Baume and others who did research for them in universities and teaching hospitals. In fact, they did and still do all their research as close to their home base as possible. In general, they are large, multinational corporations which, in fact, get up to all the tricks that pharmaceutical companies have over the years. I will not go through the stories about Roche Products Pty Ltd and the price of valium. I will not go through the stories about Roche and others who were fined for their activities in Vietnam, Africa and other areas. We know that Ciba-Geigy Australia Ltd closed, but we know that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd now carries out its operations in Australia. We know that Lilly Industries Pty Ltd closed in Australia, but it said that that had nothing to do with this Government's policy, which is the same as the previous Government's policy. Lilly closed because it had no drugs on line in Australia. In the meantime, Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd has extended operations in Victoria. Alphapharm Pty Ltd has extended operations in Queensland. Senator Crowley —Fauldings in South Australia, too. Senator GRIMES —Fauldings has also increased its operations, has it? Thank you, Senator Crowley, for that information which I am sure will enlighten us all. I will have to reply to some of the serious points which were raised by other speakers. Senator Haines talked about the delays in processing pharmaceutical benefit claims. She read from a letter. I did not get the date of the letter but I understand that it was some time ago. The Government certainly agrees that there were delays in the processing of payments to pharmacies. They were caused by a number of factors-productivity losses due to the retraining of staff for the Pharmpay system which was introduced; the relocation of some processing centres; some industrial disputes; and the need to develop and implement new recruitment procedures. But all outstanding national health scheme payments have now been processed using the special arrangements, about which I think I spoke in answer to a question asked in this place some time ago. The Department of Health now effects payments of both national health and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits claims well within the 30 calendar days. I believe that that situation has been overcome and that has been recognised by the pharmaceutical industry. We have the problem, which Senator Haines and, I think, Senator Baume, raised about drugs which now fall below the $5 levy to patients coming under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Senator Haines made one mistake. These drugs have not been removed from the national health benefits list; they stay on the list. But at the moment some 295 individual pharmaceutical benefit items which are priced between $4 and $5 will cease to be general benefits on 1 July 1985 with the increase in patient contribution. That always happens when one increases the cost to the patient of pharmaceuticals, as happened with previous increases. Other things happened to counteract that. First of all, the Remuneration Tribunal grants chemists increases in the dispensing fee. It is expected that there will be an increase from 1 July 1985. It is estimated that 77 of these items will increase in price to over $5. Therefore, they will continue to be available as general pharmaceutical benefits. So the net loss will be brought down to 218 items. Items which cost less than $5 attract in excess of 15.5 million general benefit prescriptions. However, some other items on the list will increase in price as a result of normal price increases. I had a figure for how many such items there will be. However, I seem to have lost it in my shuffling of papers. When a situation such as this occurs with regard to a limited range of pharmaceuticals, most pharmacists, to their credit, know that a large number of items will go over the limit, in this case $5, very quickly and try to hold the fee for the increases down to that limit. Certainly, as Senator Haines says, if pharmacists took up the full professional dispensing fee they are allowed to take up, some items would cost in excess of $6. There is no doubt about that. However, as I say, in general, most pharmacists do not apply the full dispensing fee. If we are to avoid the problem we are now facing-I must add that it does not apply to pensioners who get free pharmaceuticals-we will have to restructure the whole pharmaceutical system and make it quite different from the one we have had for a long time. I dare say that people have been working on it. I do not know how difficult it would be. However, on thinking about how we would avoid it, I am not quite sure how it would be done. In fact, most pharmacists do not apply the full charge in these circumstances. Senator Baume was concerned about the changes which will apply to situations whereby there is a dispute between a company and the Minister, such as the dispute over cyclophosphamide involving Bristol-Myers Co. Ltd, in which the Minister had no choice after a 60 per cent cost increase for the pharmaceutical had been imposed without warning by a pharmaceutical company but to delist the substance and other arrangements had to be made. Senator Baume was concerned that the Minister may artificially use the legislation to drive down the price of pharmaceuticals. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, established by the National Health Act, recommends the inclusion of drugs as pharmaceutical benefits. The Pharmaceutical Pricing Bureau, comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, defines what it regards as a reasonable price for a drug. The Minister's decision as to the approved price is based on that advice. The Government has no intention of disturbing this established machinery. All new drugs will continue to be considered by the Pharmaceutical Pricing Bureau. I can give Senator Baume a guarantee that we certainly have no intention of using the proposed provisions to initiate action in those areas where price agreements already exist. I suggest that the intention of the proposed scheme is beneficial to the patient in that it would provide for a continued government subsidy even where the manufacturer unreasonably seeks to increase the price of critically important drugs. Of course, in many cases there are alternatives. In most cases this situation does not apply or, if it does, it would not affect patients. I think I have answered all the questions put to me. I thank honourable senators for their support for the legislation. I do not support the amendment moved by Senator Baume on behalf of the Opposition and supported by Senator Haines on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I can count and I know that it will go through, but fortunately it will not affect the passage of the legislation. Like anyone else on this side of the House, I am disappointed that as yet we have not been able to devise a scheme which makes any difference to those people who are chronically ill and who have no entitlement to free or concessional pharmaceutical benefits. However, faced with the rapidly increasing costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, faced with the budgetary difficulties that we inherited from the previous Government and faced with the difficult economic circumstances when we have a commitment to reduce the Budget deficit, it has not yet been possible to implement such a scheme. We have not abandoned the thought of introducing such a scheme. We certainly intend to do so. Dr Blewett and I-in fact, all members of the Government-are disappointed that we have not been able to do that. The amendment draws attention to the fact that we have not been able to do that, albeit in a rather unkind way. For that reason we oppose the amendment, although at this late stage we will not divide to demonstrate that opposition. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.22) —I have a couple of questions for the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). In the explanatory memorandum to the National Health Amendment Bill a distinction is drawn under the proposed new arrangement where there is disagreement between those situations where the drug is the only one of its class available and those situations where there are alternative agents available. If there is a disagreement on the price of a particular antibiotic but alternatives are available, will the proposal which is the subject of this Bill apply or will that benefit not be available to patients? As I read the memorandum, it is not quite clear. After describing the new arrangement, the memorandum says: That is where no other brand of the drug or medicinal preparation is listed as a pharmaceutical benefit. From that I presume that where there is an alternative listed this concessional arrangement may not be available to patients. I would like clarification on that. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.23) —Senator Peter Baume is right. It certainly is written very generally in the legislation. I suppose an example of where reasonable alternatives are available is if one of the tetracyclines were suddenly hiked up. I do not think there would be much point in the Government entering into that situation. I think most medical practitioners would be aware of the difference between the price of the two and therefore it would not apply. In a case like cyclophosphamide and in a case like-I do not know; I cannot remember what is unique these days and what is not-the Minister would certainly-- Senator Withers —Castor oil. Senator GRIMES —That would be unique these days. It would probably do us a lot of good though. It is meant to apply for those unique situations where we have got a drug for which really there is no alternative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.24) —It is sad that I must quote from the pharmaceutical benefits book of December 1983 and through the Minister I say to his officers that I have not received anything much since that time, so could the Department of Health make sure that its mailing list is up to date because I still like to receive these books. I refer to one of the entries, for example, phenylalanine low content formula for phenylketonuria, which is a rare illness. The price that is listed for the permissible amount is $106.03. I take as another example one of the heparins, which is very expensive. Heparin, 20,000 units in 20 millilitres, costs $45.42. The question is: What happens if a disagreement occurs with one of those drugs? It is a matter of having to explain how much money the patient might be left with. For example, if the Minister allowed $85 or $90 for the treatment of phenylketonuria, would the patient have to pay the entire difference plus the $5? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.26) —That is exactly what it amounts to. Lofenalac is an example of one of those which I think was delisted for a time. For Senator Baume's interest, in April 1985 its price was $109.13. So the price has not gone up much actually from the time he mentioned. If the Government decided that $90 was fair, with the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Pricing Bureau, the patient would have to pay that difference. Senator Peter Baume —And the $5? Senator GRIMES —Plus the $5. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.27) —Tonight we are debating the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which relates to two items; firstly, the funding to services provided in nursing homes for other than nursing home patients; and secondly, changes in the payment of family allowances. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) stated in his second reading speech that this Bill relates to decisions made a short time ago, but that is not entirely accurate because the decision in regard to the nursing homes was not foreshadowed at all prior to the introduction of this Bill. We are told that the changes will save the Government half a million dollars in a full year; that is, it will stop the funding of any new or additional services to pensioners who are not residents of nursing homes, particularly where those services were not approved or were approved in principle prior to August 1985. I explain that nursing homes do not look after only their own residents but many of them supply services to the aged and the handicapped in the community generally and do a very good service. I do not believe it is the Government's intention to scrap these services altogether. I believe that the Government has decided to make sure that the nursing home legislation relates solely to nursing homes and their own patients and that all the services they supply to the handicapped and aged people in the community will fall within the scope of the home and community care program. This sounds like a very good idea, but unfortunately it further highlights the fraud the Government attempted to perpetrate during the last election. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, during that election campaign said: We will establish a new cost-shared home and community care program. This will integrate existing programs into a single program and expand into new areas with substantially increased funding. It sounded good. He said that the Government's contribution to this program would be $300m. That was clearly to divert the pensioners' attention away from the assets test, and he certainly needed to do that prior to the election. Boy, what an awful mess that assets test now is. We have just heard that Mr Howe has said that the Government will be making changes to the wonderful assets test with which, Senator Grimes was telling us, we were going to catch all those millionaires. He did not mention all the others, but I will come to that later. While the ploy of diverting the attention of pensioners failed and the Government lost a considerable number of seats, the home and community care program raised expectations in the community. We know and the Minister knows that many people are very concerned about it. We now know that little money is going into HACC. During an Estimates committee hearing Miss Mary Scott, who is the Assistant Secretary of the HACC branch, said: There is a finite amount of money available-$10m on an unmatched basis for this financial year, $25m on a three for one basis for 1985-86 and $30m on a two for one basis in 1986-87. We get a lot from the Estimates committees and that was one of the gems that we got in this area. As I said, community groups are very concerned that there will be little scope for new services and that the whole program and all that money they were meant to be getting will be used to bring existing services under one program for the convenience of the bureaucrats alone. Why would they be concerned about that? Let us look at the Press statement by Senator Grimes on 2 March. He reflected, I believe very clearly, in that statement the Government's change of emphasis over the HACC program and gave an indication where those additional funds, which we were told by the Estimates committee were so light on, may end up. Senator Grimes said: Over the next three years, new approaches to the program will be shaped by exploring new financing approaches; testing different service delivery options and new service types; assessing and supporting training requirements; and developing more co-ordination mechanisms. We have heard about exploring, testing, assessing and co-ordinating mechanisms, but we have no word about expansion or new services; not a word. Even the State Labor Ministers have acknowledged the fraud. The South Australian Health Minister, Mr John Cornwall, MLC, said: Unfortunately, I believe it may have been oversold significantly in the pre-Federal election climate. I think that expectations might have been unduly raised . . . it will certainly not be the answer to all our problems. That came from one of the Labor State Ministers. Now we have the Minister for Social Security attempting to resurrect the fraud and again diverting the pensioners' attention away from the assets test at a time when the Minister and the Government are once again backing off from the assets test and changing it. The Government is not catching all those millionaires; it is catching the little farmers. The Government is now altering the assets test for hardship benefits. It is not catching millionaires but altering it for hardship benefits for all the little people it catches. This is the wonderful assets test that Senator Grimes assured us would bring in a lot of the millionaires. He said: 'Look at all the millionaires we are catching'. The Government caught within its net all the little sardines, all the little farmers. Now it has to change the hardship benefits in an assets test which was meant to catch only the millionaires. The honourable senator, on the national Today show, said: We are developing, I think, a very exciting program, the home and community care program. This will mean a revolution in many respects in terms of the care for the aged within the community and within their own homes, but it will take time to develop, time to bite as a program, but over the next couple of years, I think that one of the most popular programs introduced by any government will be seen to be the home and community care program. Wonderful stuff! It will take a long time-a few years. Gosh! We can compare that to the assets tests brought in by the former Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Anyway, given the history of the program, this is a laughable and fraudulent statement. The Minister is really a disastrous Minister. While the Opposition does not oppose the changes contained in this Bill relating to nursing homes and the HACC program, we place on record our grave concern, along with the community's dismay, at the lack of initiatives contained in the HACC program. As I said a little while ago, we have noted the Minister's exploring, testing, assessing and co-ordinating mechanisms. But we have also noted that no expansion and no new services are mentioned. The second purpose of the Bill is the abolition of the family allowance for students over 18 years of age. We are told that this will save the Government $20m this year and $30m next year. Again, it is a wonderful program-but we must now have 6,000 exceptions. We expect exceptions to be made for 6,000 students, and we have hardship provisions again. Like the assets test, we have to go in for hardship provisions. Obviously, it will end up as another assets test mess. I believe that it is just a further attack on the single income family in particular. Let us take the average single income family, currently earning $18,000 a year. Suppose it has four or five children, a couple of whom are over 18 and attending a technical college or a university. I believe the head of this single income family would be struggling to maintain two university students or a technical college student, with another couple of children at school. Senator Peter Baume —He would need his family allowance. Senator WALTERS —Let us have a look at what he will get. He was getting $5.25 for his first child, $7.50 for his second, $9 for his third, and about $11 for his fourth. If two of his children go off to a technical college, what he loses immediately is his $11 and his $9. So he is left with $5.25 and $7.50-- Senator Harradine —Who is 'he'? Senator WALTERS —Senator Harradine has not been listening. He loses his $9 and his $11. He is now left with his $5.25 and his $7.50. His university students are not entitled to benefits under the tertiary education assistance scheme but he has to support them without any family allowance. His two highest family allowance payments have gone, at a time when he is getting older and he is looking for a bit of respite from educating his children. I believe that average man has been struggling hard to provide what he would call the best education for his children. This Government in this Bill has now made a further attack on families, particularly the single income family, which will be more disadvantaged. The average man will now lose the family allowance for his two student children, who are certainly not income earners and who are not considered independent adults-if they were they would receive money under TEAS. They are being means tested on the basis of their parents' income. I have no problem with their being mean-tested for TEAS on the basis of their parents' income, but I believe that parents-the mother in this situation-are entitled to a family allowance until children are earning. It is despicable of the Government to have made such an attack. We are used to such action. Over the last couple of months we have been getting vibes to the effect that the Government would take away the dependent spouse rebate. We have heard that from all the feminists on the Government side. We have heard that it is not the done thing any more for a wife to be classed as a dependent spouse; she should be out earning her own income. We have been told that the Government intends to take away the dependent spouse rebate. We have heard that sort of talk ad nauseam from the Government. That philosophy comes repeatedly from the Government side. The HACC program has yet to prove itself. I will be interested to hear the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) tell us of the new expanding programs on which $300m will be spent. I will certainly be delighted to hear how he will explain away the hardship that I believe he will be invoking on the average single income earner who is trying to do his best to provide for his children's education. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(9.43) —Before I make any other comments on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, I point out to Senator Walters that it is the average woman who receives the family allowance, not the average man, and that in fact that is one of the few bits of income that the average man cannot get his sticky little paws on very easily. The Bill before us today has two main functions: One relates to nursing home services and the other to the cessation of the family allowance for student children over the age of 18. The first proposal seems harmless enough since, allegedly, some services will be picked up in the new home and community care program. Like Senator Walters, however, I have some concerns about this matter. I expect that members and senators from the non-government parties will be keeping a weather eye on the home and community care program to ensure that it does provide adequate community services, including those services in nursing homes that have been denied funding. The second element of the legislation is probably of more concern-that is, the cessation of the family allowance for students over the age of 18. Senator Walters was concerned about the impact of this proposal on single income families. I suggest that it could have a wider impact than that. Admittedly, there will be some offsetting in a partial easing of the granting of allowances under the tertiary education scheme, but I do not believe that this will really be of assistance to a large group of families in the community, notwithstanding the fact that approximately 6,000 student children will be exempt from the legislation. It seems to me that low income families with a large number of children-be they single income or dual income families-will be significantly hit by this proposal. Families who live in the country and who have additional problems compared with families living in the city will be hurt by it as will those generally on low and low to middle incomes. I hope that the Government will take some steps to measure the impact of the proposal on families in the community, particularly those with children, and any likely impact on the education of those children. If I may take a little licence, I would like to raise in this second reading debate a matter which is not part of the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill but which, like elements of this legislation, was part of the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) some weeks ago. I refer to the cuts in child care subsidies. I do not know whether I have missed seeing a piece of legislation on the Notice Paper that is likely to bring these cuts into effect through legislation, or whether it can be done by regulations or guidelines, but there is much concern in the community about how the cuts signalled in the Treasurer's statement will affect access to child care centres. The Treasurer's economic statement contained the rather extraordinary element that while there is to be a cut of about $45m from the child care subsidy budget over an 18-month period, the Government will still be able to provide the promised extra 20,000 places Australia-wide. To my mind, that does not compute; the two statements are not compatible, unless there is to be a significant reorganisation of eligibility and, hence, access to those centres. It is not possible to provide an extra 20,000 places in child care centres if at the same time the Government is cutting off over an 18-month period $45m in subsidies. I do not know how other States are getting on, but South Australia is already facing a problem in regard to access to family day care. If this is to be extended to access problems with regard to child care centres generally. I suggest that many families, women and children in the community will be deprived of access to the care they need. Representatives of the women's shelters raised with me some weeks ago that they are facing a real problem in getting access to family day care for women residents in the shelters. These women are already suffering extreme stress. They require access to some sort of child care either through family day care or through centres but, more usually in these cases because it is respite care, through the use of family day care. They need that access if only to give them time to themselves to sort out the crises in their lives, to see a lawyer or a doctor, or to attend interviews at the social security or community welfare office, or whatever it may be. They need access to government subsidised child care of one sort or another. In South Australia at least shelters from all the regions are reporting that this access is now unavailable to families whose women they are caring for, as the care givers are available only to working mothers. Their argument is that the working mothers constantly need access to care, but in regard to family day care the shelter workers argue that working mothers are in a far better position to pay for their children to be cared for in child care centres. Such centres are sometimes outside the access of women in shelters or in a crisis care of some sort. I understand that the top priority for access to family day care, and I presume also to other forms of child care, goes to children of single parents or of families with two working parents. It would appear to me that if the Government is to make those two aims compatible-that is, cutting $45m in 18 months from subsidies and still providing the extra 20,000 places-it will have to offer those places to people who can afford to pay the $50 or $60 per week, or whatever it is, for child care centre costs and not to those people who can afford only the minimum fee of $10, which requires the Government to pitch in the maximum of subsidy. It seems to me, suspicious soul that I am, that the Government's cut in funds will result in a reduction in the access of low income families, sole supporting parents who would like to go back into the work force, women who are part of a two-income earning family but whose income is low, and so on. Their access will be reduced because the Government will be limiting the subsidy it pays out and therefore will be encouraging into child care centres the children of families which can well afford to pay the full price. The Government is making this Budget cut at the expense of families which desperately need and cannot afford to pay for the sort of care that a government child care centre provides. I hope that I have not over-indulged in going outside the area of this legislation. I know that there are increasing numbers of women, including members of the Victorian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council of Social Service and so on, who are concerned about the impact that that unexplained statement by the Treasurer will have on access to child care and, in particular, access to child care by families which can least afford to pay. I thank the Senate for its indulgence. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.52) —I believe that the measure we are considering tonight, insofar it relates to the family allowance, has implications which neither Government nor the Parliament and, least of all, the people of Australia have had time to consider. This is one of the measures that have been brought into the Parliament as a result of the economic statement of two weeks ago. I believe that it is inappropriate for it to have been brought into the Parliament at this juncture as it really affects a measure which is paid to families in the form of an allowance. The implications of this measure are such that it will be either the thin end of the wedge for the means testing of the family allowance, alternatively, a de facto introduction of a fee for education-not only tertiary education fees but also secondary education fees. It must have been a decision which went against all the authoritative statements which have come from the Government on this important matter-namely, the family allowance question-from the time the present Government was first elected in 1983. During the 1983 campaign the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hawke, when talking to Richard Carleton on Nationwide on 15 February, the day the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, delivered his election speech, said: You recall that in his election speech tonight, Richard, he said that we-- that is to say, the Liberal Party of Australia-- are the family Party, he talked about the fact that he increased family allowances by 50% over the last two years. Let me give the people of Australia the facts. In fact now, after his last budget, family allowances are significantly lower in real terms, they are worth less now then they were in 1976. That was Bob Hawke's statement on 15 February 1983. The situation now is that that very same family allowance has been eroded even further. At this point in time it is worth in real terms only about half of what it was worth when it was first introduced in 1976. Honourable senators will remember that in 1976 there was a revamping of the whole of the child endowment tax rebate system. Until that time there had been a child endowment tax concession system, and later a child endowment tax rebate system. In 1976 the tax rebate was abolished and the money so saved was transferred into an enhanced family allowance system being paid, in most cases, directly to the mother. At that time a number of us in this Senate warned that that could result in the erosion of that allowance over a period. I think it is fair to say that the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, also made that comment at that time and expressed his concern that if the allowance was not indexed it would in fact lose its value. That has happened. We come to a situation whereby not only has the real value of the family allowance been eroded, but there have been constant suggestions that it should be means tested. Of course, that ignores the fact that it is not really a welfare payment in any event; it is really part of the taxation system converted to a payment to the mother-unless, of course, we regard families, which are after all the most important business in the nation, differently from every other business. In respect of allowances to every other business there is no means testing. I believe that it is apt for me to quote what the Minister, Senator Grimes, said at the National Economic Summit Conference about this very matter. On 12 April 1983, he said, quite cogently and with unassailable logic: On family allowances, there is frequent criticism of the cost of this system, currently about $1.5 billion a year. It is often forgotten, however, that family allowances are not and were never meant to be a welfare program in the strict sense. Rather, they are designed to achieve a broad measure of equity in the tax transfer system between those with and those without dependent children. They recognise that at any level of income those with children face higher costs than those without. Seen in this light, family allowances offset to some extent the tax liabilities of those with children so that their net contribution to revenue is reduced in reflection of their lesser ability to pay. Immediately prior to 1976 this was achieved by the dependent child tax rebate. I point out that no one at that stage ever suggested that this tax rebate should be means tested. Since then, and currently, payment of family allowances on a universal basis has been acknowledged as a more suitable and equitable way of providing such assistance since it directs it to mothers and provides greater assistance to low income families who received little or no help-usually no help-from the rebate as it existed before. So there we have it. I can only sympathise with the Minister that a decision has been arrived at now by the Government which undermines the unassailable logic of his statement. He said: It is often forgotten, however, that family allowances are not and were never meant to be a welfare program in the strict sense. Yet in the Minister's second reading speech to the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which is before us the excuse that is given for this measure is: This decision will enable scarce welfare funds to be directed to the many impoverished and needy members of our community. As has been said by the Minister, they are not welfare funds; it is not a welfare program in the strict sense. It is a question of horizontal tax equity. Therefore, it does concern me that this could well be the thin end of the wedge for a general means testing of family allowances without any other tax mechanism having been put into its place which would restore some sort of horizontal tax equity. Alternatively, it is a back door method of introducing tertiary or secondary fees. I refer to a letter which was sent to me, a copy of a letter that was sent to the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan. The letter, which was from a mother in Canberra who has five children, two of whom go to the Australian National University, explains the situation very well. It says: According to a news item on the radio on Sunday, May 19 you are opposed to renewed efforts by some members of the Government to introduce fees for tertiary education. However, Mr Keating in his statement to Parliament on Tuesday 14 May foreshadowed the elimination in November of family allowance payments presently made for student children aged 18 or over. I would suggest to you that this proposal is nothing more than a de facto introduction of a fee for education, not only at the tertiary level but, in some cases, at secondary level as well. I interpose to say that it is quite possible to have at least one child over the age of 18 years at higher school certificate level. In fact, it is quite likely that that would be the situation. The letter continues: The proposal has two principal features distinguishing it from the usual type of fee: the money will go to consolidated revenue and the fee per child will be greater the larger the family, if the usual practices of the Department of Social Security are followed. That is an important aspect. The constituent says: I have five children: One under school age, two at school and two, aged 18 and 19, attending the Australian National University. At present family allowance payments are made to me on the following basis: Monthly Children in family rate $ First child 22.80 Second child 32.55 Third child 39.00 Fourth child 39.00 Fifth child 45.55 Were my eldest two daughters to become employed the resultant reduction in my family allowance payments would be $84.55 per month. This amount would be lost because my third, fourth and fifth children would, for the purpose of assessment of the family allowance, become my first, second and third children respectively. That is, I would lose the payments of $39.00 and $45.55 presently paid in respect of my fourth and fifth children. This loss, however, would be offset by the fact that the older girls, because of employment, would be independent and my net household expenses for their support reduced. Similarly, the same situation would result if they were to abandon their studies and become entitled to unemployment benefits. Once the proposed abolition of family allowances for dependent students becomes effective in November, those two daughters will be no less dependent, no less students, no less a cost to my household and they will be able to make no greater a contribution than now (nothing in monetary terms) to meeting the family expenses. Yet my family will be penalised the same $84.55 a month as if they had become employed or entitled to unemployment benefits. She may be misunderstanding what is in the legislation, and so might I but that is as I see it if the usual assessment is made by the Department of Social Security. She continues: However, were my two eldest children the only children of the family then, come November, the loss would be ($22.80 + $32.55)=$55.35 per month. That is bad enough, but why should my family and I incur an additional penalty of $29.20 per month because of the large family size? Please explain to me why that is to occur. The injustice of the forthcoming situation is apparent. I therefore ask: please will you make representations to the Government on behalf of my family, and those others similarly disadvantaged, to ensure that the maximum reduction in family allowance resulting from the proposed Government action does not exceed the sum presently paid in respect of those children whose allowances are to be abolished? That is, will you try to ensure that my two student children should still be acknowledged as dependent-which is what they will remain-so that I be still categorised as having five dependent children, for the first two of whom no benefit is paid? Consequently I would still receive the appropriate family allowance for the third, fourth and fifth dependent child so that the reduction in family allowance would not exceed $55.35 per month, rather than the intended $84.55. The letter, which I think honourable senators will agree is cogently argued, concludes as follows: As far as the direct introduction of tertiary education fees is concerned, I would point out that with two of my daughters already receiving tertiary education, and a third daughter expected to start tertiary studies in 1987, my family would not be able to cope with the financial cost. The most likely result would be the obvious one-only one daughter would receive such education. That is what I meant by saying that I do not think the full implications of this measure have hit the Government, the Parliament or indeed the community. On the one hand, it is an inequitable measure; it destroys the horizontal equity argument. When one approaches this matter one must accept the argument that, no matter what the level of income, it is a costly business to raise a family and where there are more children in the family it is, of course, more costly. If this legislation is effected, and if it is the thin end of the wedge, there will be no justice in that situation and persons who have family responsibilities will, in fact, be discriminated against as no other business in Australia is discriminated against. Bearing in mind the argument put forward by the lady in a very cogent fashion, if the current assessment is made the allowance will not only be cut out for the first two children who are being educated, but also the allowance for the next two will be dropped down accordingly. There is a doubly whammy in this measure. One family with five children may say to the daughters: 'You get out to work'. That family will lose the family allowance of $55.35 per month for those two over 18. Another such family may say: 'No, we believe that you should be encouraged to go on to tertiary education'. The Minister for Education says that we should encourage people to go on to tertiary education. Under this measure, that family will be penalised to the extent of $84.55 per month. That is not just. I put it to the Senate that that is not fair. After all, the Government is trying to encourage people to finish their secondary education and to go into tertiary education. It acknowledges that the labour market is tight, but in this measure, it is saying that if the two eldest daughters over 18 years of age go on to unemployment benefit or, indeed, go to work, the mother will lose only $55.35. That is fair enough, because those children are employed or receiving some money. But if they are in tertiary education or if the parents are ensuring that they finish their secondary education, the mother, who, of course, will not receive any income from the children, will lose $29.20 a month more than if the girls had gone out to work. I really cannot see any justice in that. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to these matters. I have heard him fight for justice in this area over the years. I hope that the Government will take this to heart and reconsider this legislation once its full implication has been brought to its attention. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.14) —in reply-We have had a wide-ranging debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. I suppose that the two honourable senators who ranged most widely were Senator Walters and Senator Haines. Senator Walters had some harsh things to say about the home and community care program, which is not actually part of this legislation, although one of the reasons for ceasing in the future to deficit fund nursing homes which provide what have been called in the past approved services for non-residents has been the introduction of the home and community care program. Senator Walters does not think much of that program. I can assure her that Mr Cornwall and the South Australian Government certainly think plenty of it. He assured me at the last meeting of Health Ministers on the Friday before last-when, in fact, no objections were raised about this program-that negotiations were proceeding satisfactorily and we were going to go ahead with this. Senator Walters —You will need to do more than that. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters says that it is not much of a program. We have a base of $80m, which is to be indexed. We have provision for $10m in the first year. On top of that, in the second year we have provision for $25m and we have provision for $30m in the third year. I suggest that that is not a bad increase on top of a base of $80m in a program of that size. Also, the States will be coming in on the cost-sharing arrangements, as Senator Walters said. The simple fact of the matter is that we are trying to get these services in the community so that people will no longer go into nursing homes in the numbers in which they are- Senator Walters —Testing, assessing, experimenting? Senator GRIMES —Of course we will have to do that. The significant thing about the seminars, and in particular the seminars that were held with non-government organisations in Tasmania-this is something which the State Minister has admitted-was that the criticism from the non-government organisations was aimed at the State governments which were tardy in coming to the party and getting into the agreements. Everyone in the community believes that this is the direction in which we have to go. We have an expenditure increase of at least $10m in the first year, $25m in the second year and $30m in the third year, with an indexed base. This is about $0.5m- Senator Walters —Testing and assessing? Senator GRIMES —Of course we will test things. Of course we will assess how existing programs work. Senator Walters —And experimenting. Senator GRIMES —Of course we will introduce innovative and, indeed, experimental programs. Senator Walters —What are they? Senator GRIMES —But we will proceed with expansion of the existing home and community care programs such as the home nursing and domiciliary care program, the delivered meals program, et cetera. Senator Walters can criticise this arrangement. She is criticising it before the agreements are even signed. Senator Haines somehow got round to mentioning child care funding. I must say that I have been waiting in Question Time for a question on child care from someone like Senator Haines, but I am afraid I have not had it. Yes, it is possible to do what we are doing. The Government is, in fact, committed to the introduction of 20,000 new places in the next three years, and we will do that, as we increased by over 60 per cent the number of new places in the first two years of government and as we increased from 4 1/2 per cent to 7 1/2 per cent of the community the coverage of children in child care centres, which has not sent us through the roof but which has almost doubled the number. We have increased those programs in co-operation with the States. The cuts we are talking about are twofold. The first are the cuts in pre-school block grants to the States. Those pre-school block grants have stayed at $30.12m or thereabouts, since 1978. They have not increased. They have been eroded by inflation. I do not think I have heard Senator Haines complain about that once, nor have I heard anyone on the other side complain about it at all. In fact, I did not hear the State Ministers complain about it at all. Why did we not hear them complain about that? The reason is that, in fact, the States have taken over responsibility for pre-schools. In some States like my own these matters come largely within the responsibility of the Department of Education. There have been very large increases in grants to the States in all of those years and the States, in fact, now spend an average of seven to nine times the amount that the Commonwealth grant involves. The States knew that was going to go. They will discuss it at the Premiers Conference, obviously with colourful language. But, in fact, that was going to go all the time. The other reduction of $15m will be made off the Forward Estimates. However, the decreases will still not change our commitment to maintain acceptable standards in the quality of care, to maintain affordable child care to low and moderate income earners and to continue to provide fee relief while at the same time ensuring that Commonwealth funded child care continues to meet the needs across the whole range. Within the provision of acceptable quality of care we want to provide incentives for service operators and users to contain costs. What happens now under our fee relief system is that every family, whatever its income, gets an operational subsidy of up to $35 a week. It is usually between $30 and $35 a week. Under the fee relief system, families earning over $50,000-they do exist; two-income families, et cetera-pay the same subsidised child care fees as families earning $28,000 or $38,000 a year. Senator Haines —I am not worried about them; I am worried about the ones on $11,000. Senator GRIMES —I know. I am also worried about the low income earners. The present situation is inequitable. We have to introduce a new system involving at least the fee relief system and perhaps the operational subsidy system which will involve certainly those at the upper end of the scale in paying a bit more. The cost of centre-based child care averages about $95 a week at the moment. Family day care costs less. So in some circumstances we are paying to low income earners and to those high priority people Senator Haines talks about, the disadvantaged-low income earners, single parents and single income earners-very considerable subsidies. The forward estimate for the expansion of the program the way I am sure Senator Haines and I would like to have it expanded is very considerable and not sustainable. However, that does not mean that we cannot proceed with assisting in the capital provision by the States of the 20,000 new places which, as I say, we did in the last couple of years. It does not mean that we cannot have an affordable system going right across the board. Most of the increases, which will not be introduced until 1 January, will fall on those who can best afford to pay. It is only when we get more places, when we ensure that child care centres are applying the priorities that both State and Federal governments want-I will certainly look at what is happening in South Australia-and when disadvantaged kids and kids from disadvantaged families Senator Haines was talking about get priority in centres that we will get the proper sort of child care system we want. We must make sure that people are operating within the national and State parameters we want them to keep to. It is in the fee relief area and perhaps in the operational subsidy area that changes will have to be made. It makes no difference to our commitment to provide 20,000 new child care places if the States, because of the reduction of the small amount of subsidy they get from the Commonwealth for pre-schools, decide to cut pre-school education; that is their priority, not ours. It is their priority at the moment. We just hand them the money and they do with it what they like. They have had adequate funding from general grants. I do not believe that in times of economic restraint such as this, with a scheme the States know was going to be cut-they had been expecting it year after year-they should squeal. In fact, I do not think there have been many complaints since the first couple of days. I am quite happy with and get quite aggressive about our record in child care. I believe that, as in the last two years, our record will speak for itself in the next three years. Senator Harradine raises a more serious point-the decision to withdraw family allowances for most students aged 18 years and over as part of the May economic statement. He quoted at length from my speech to the National Economic Summit Conference. I agree with him that it was a good speech. I stand by everything I said in that speech. We have to remember that child endowment for children aged over 18 years was a relatively recent innovation. The Government had, and will continue to have, difficult economic decisions to make. In making those decisions we will have to sort out our priorities about where savings will be made. Whatever priorities we have, and whatever savings we make, Senator Walters will complain about them. Senator Walters says that the assets test is inequitable, but she has not told us what a coalition government would do about the $150m which will be saved to the revenue of this country. She talks about the farmers. She talks as though this is a sudden change, although I have said many times in this place that we realised that it was a difficult area and Mr Howe and the Government have made administrative changes to that system which will cope with a few problems. She talks about hardship. I have never heard Senator Walters get up in here and talk about the hardship which applies to people who are really poor, people who have no income and people who apply for special benefit under desperate circumstances and who cannot and could not get special benefit under her Government if they had a few hundred dollars in the bank. That is real hardship. I was the Minister for Social Security and I was the shadow Minister and I know the restrictions on people getting special benefit. I know the restrictions and Senator Walters should know them. The problem with Senator Walters is that, throughout the assets test debate, she did not tell the truth, nor did her staff. That is part of the reason for the problem we had in Tasmania. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! That remark about not telling the truth should be withdrawn. Senator GRIMES —Mr Deputy President, I will withdraw that remark. Senator Walters —Chuck him out. Senator GRIMES —I am too big. Senator Harradine raised a serious point. After considerable debate, the Government decided that this was one area where reductions in expenditure could be made. As I am sure Senator Harradine recognises, there are saving clauses in the legislation. Students not receiving a tertiary allowance who are in families attracting additional pension or benefit, students attracting family income supplement, orphans, pensions, handicapped children's allowances, et cetera, are not affected by the changes. They will also be continued for those students receiving secondary allowances, Aboriginal secondary grants or an income tested grant under the assistance for isolated children. Of course, there are people who will feel hard done by under this system, not least the lady Senator Harradine mentioned, who objects, as I think someone did in Question Time the other day, to the fact that when people turn 18 years under these circumstances the family is then paid a family allowance on the basis of the existing number of dependent children in the family and does not have the situation preserved as the family would like it. That situation, of course, exists now. As people turn 16 years and go into the work force, the family allowance is calculated on the number of people left in the family. I do not believe that I can do much about the specific examples mentioned in this place by Senator Harradine unless I know the circumstances of the family. I would be surprised if a family with five children, two at the Australian National University and three still at secondary school, was not getting some sort of tertiary education assistance. If the family is not at that level, the income might be a bit higher than the limits Senator Walters mentioned. Most of the criticism of Senator Walters and Senator Harradine was of the tertiary education assistance scheme income test. I suppose they are criticising the levels of the assessed family income under the TEAS system. That is another debate and another argument. I regret that this step had to be taken but there is an argument that people in our society who are 18 are adult. We have had a test for tertiary allowance payments under previous governments and under this Government there is a calculation for the family allowance. As unsatisfactory as it may be to Senator Harradine and as unsatisfactory as it may be to all of us that we cannot pay benefits at this level continuously, I believe that the Government was forced into this situation by the present economic circumstances and I believe that it was a decision hard taken, but a decision that was correctly taken. I thank honourable senators for their support for the legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 109) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Transport aware of the article in New Scientist of 4 October 1984, entitled 'Motorbike brakes labelled unsafe in the rain'. (2) How many motorcycles are sold in Australia yearly. (3) What percentage of these motorcycles use disc brakes. (4) What types of disc brakes are used on motorcycles in Australia. (5) Are the 'organic' or 'sintered metal' brakes, described in the article referred to in (1) above, used in Australian motorcycles. (6) Will the Minister initiate an inquiry into the suitability of disc brakes, used in Australian motorcycles, for driving in both wet and dry conditions, and act immediately to remove from the market any brakes found to be inadequate in any Australian conditions. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The number of motorcycles sold in Australia in recent years can be illustrated by the following table: Regis- trations of motor- Period cycles 1977-78 38,049 1978-79 37,278 1979-80 53,947 1980-81 70,799 1981-82 71,691 1982-83 61,061 1983-84 46,684 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 1984 Yearbook pp. 469. (3) Detailed information of the kind requested is not available but the Federal Office of Road Safety estimates that more than 50 per cent of new motorcycles use disc brakes. (4) Motorcycles in Australia using disc brakes would include conventional and enclosed discs and asbestos and sintered metal disc pads. (5) Yes. (6) FORS and other road safety agencies in Australia have been aware of the problem of wet weather performance of motorcycle brakes for some time. FORS has monitored overseas developments including the research findings referred to in the article in New Scientist of 4 October 1984. FORS also commissioned research projects on the braking, stability and handling of motorcycles. These projects were finalised in 1984 and, among other things, confirmed that the testing requirements for motorcycles braking systems contained in Australian Design Rule 33 could be improved. During 1984 FORS conducted a comprehensive review of motorcycle safety issues which led to the Australian Transport Advisory Council endorsing a package of measures to improve motorcycle safety. The ATAC package included a priority review of ADR 33. It is only recently that a satisfactory test procedure for wet weather braking has been developed. The new wet braking test for motorcycles is soon to be introduced by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe as Regulation 13.05. The technical committee of ATAC reviewing ADR 33 has concluded that ECE Regulation 13.05 overcomes the problems associated with ADR 33 and has recommended that Australia adopt the ECE Regulation. This would also be consistent with the general policy objective of aligning vehicle standards in Australia with international standards. In the circumstances I consider an inquiry, as suggested by the honourable senator, to be unnecessary. (Question No. 117) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 March 1985: (1) Does a document of sale exist for the sale of Grumman Tracker aircraft to France; if so, what is the sale price of these aircraft and how many aircraft are being considered for sale. (2) What was the cost of the recent refitting of Grumman Tracker aircraft following damage by fire. (3) Has the Government considered the use of Grumman Tracker aircraft for fire fighting as water-bombers; if so, did any decision to sell the aircraft result from this consideration. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I have been advised that a document of sale does not exist for the sale of Grumman Tracker aircraft to France. (2) Two aircraft survived the fire at NAS Nowra on 4 December 1976 as economically repairable. Repairs cost $74,547 and $83,475 respectively excluding the cost of Government furnished spares which were issued on demand but not identified against the aircraft for which they were required. (3) Although primary responsibility for bushfire prevention rests with the States, the Federal Government does provide substantial financial assistance through the Natural Disasters Organisation and frequently the resources of the Defence Force are made available to the States to assist in bushfire control. Over the past few years the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has undertaken work into bushfire control and research on a major project in this field, Project Aquarius, was completed this year. Significant benefits derived to date from the project include; a computer simulation model showing the effectiveness of air tanker operations under various conditions; and, the adoption of an economic model developed in Canada to determine the benefits of using particular aircraft to control specific fire situations in Australia. These two models will be used to disseminate information collected on fire behaviour and fire losses in Australia and overseas data on the effectiveness of aerial methods in controlling bushfires. The models will provide a framework for further research by CSIRO and other bodies. The Project Aquarius Report is expected to be available later this year. The findings of Project Aquarius should allow for a better understanding of bushfire control and provide reliable data for assessing the cost-effectiveness of different systems under Australian conditions. It is by no means certain that aircraft are the sole answer to Australia's bushfire problem. The research undertaken by CSIRO will enable relevant fire control authorities to invest sensibly in the most appropriate management systems for their particular fire problems. CSIRO is soon to set up a National Bushfire Research Unit. This unit will develop and manage a central data bank of information on bushfires and will undertake contract research, thus providing a source of expertise and advice to organisations across Australia. In the event that State Governments or community organisations should seriously consider the acquisition of the Grumman Trackers for conversion to a fire fighting role it remains open to them to put a purchase proposal to the firm of Ford and Vlahos (Australia), of 23 State Circle, Forrest, A.C.T. 2603 which is responsible for the world wide marketing of the aircraft. (Question No. 215) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 April 1985: (1) What is the length of time applicants must wait for assessment by the National Acoustic Laboratory in Canberra, Brisbane and Townsville. (2) What staffing arrangements are available to provide relief audiologists to those centres relying on trainee audiologists to complete apprenticeships. (3) How does the National Acoustic Laboratory determine staffing levels to cater for regional centres, where audiologists are required to travel extensively. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Waiting times for applicants to be assessed by these National Acoustic Laboratories hearing centres are: Canberra Adults 5 months Children 2-5 weeks Brisbane Adults 6 months Children 4-6 weeks Townsville Adults 8 months Children 4-8 weeks Waiting times for children's assessment within the above periods depend on the type of case, with urgent cases being seen more promptly. (2) No relief audiologists are available to cover audiologists-in-training. However, where possible, relief officers are provided for audiologists. (3) Staffing levels for each regional centre are determined from workload and the need for travel by audiologists is taken into account. Allocation to each centre is based on demand for services, accommodation and staff available. (Question No. 259) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 May 1985: What has been the total cost to the Australian Government of all professional services rendered by Monahan Dayman Adams advertising agency since 5 March 1983. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Payments made since 5 March 1983 to the separate Sydney and Melbourne branches of Monahan Dayman Adams Pty Ltd for creative services in developing a number of departmental campaigns have been: Sydney $127,144.92; Melbourne $158,042.86. Total $285,157.78. Payments for professional services made to Monahan Dayman Adams (NSW) Pty Ltd since their appointment as Master Agency for the placement of Radio/TV/ Cinema advertising on 1 October 1984, total $117,182.87. (Question No. 304) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 1985: (1) Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of claims made at the National Press Club by Pat Dodson, the Co-ordinator of the National Federation of Land Councils, on 14 May 1985, and reported in the Canberra Times on 15 May 1985, to the effect that Aboriginal people have only been granted 28 per cent of the Northern Territory land, and that the present Northern Territory land rights legislation has no significant negative effect on mining or other industries. (2) Is the Minister aware of the facts that at least 33 per cent of Territory land has been granted to Aboriginal people as inalienable freehold land, with a further 13 per cent presently under claim, (including a number of pastoral leases), and given the success of past claims, likely to be granted, and that since the land rights legislation has come into operation in the Territory only 6 agreements for mineral development projects have been completed, all being projects for which exploration had been completed before 1972 and which did not require Aboriginal consent. (3) In view of the facts referred to above, is the Minister concerned that a representative of the Aboriginal people is providing false and misleading information to the Australian community and particularly the media, if so, is the Minister prepared to correct this misinformation. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) The facts are that approximately 27 per cent of the Northern Territory has been granted to Aboriginal Land Trusts, with a further 6 per cent of the Territory in the process of being granted. A further 13 per cent of the Territory is presently under claim. However, the proposed amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which will exclude claims to Aboriginal owned pastoral properties, stock routes and stock reserves and public purpose lands, will substantially reduce this figure. The Senator is correct in stating that 6 agreements for mineral development projects have been negotiated under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. (3) The Minister is not responsible for the actions of Mr Dodson any more than he is responsible for the actions of the honourable senator from the Northern Territory. The Minister is concerned to ensure that the facts of these issues are not misrepresented by anyone in the development of the debate on Aboriginal land rights. Senator Gareth Evans —On 19 April 1985 (Hansard, page 1264) Senator Durack asked the following question without notice: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Government agree with Mr Temby's views? The Minister did not deal with that. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The question raises matters which must be of grave concern to every government. This Government is deeply committed to both law enforcement and to the upholding of personal privacy and the liberties and freedoms traditionally enjoyed by members of Australian society. Society has an interest in both law enforcement and in the protection of civil liberties. These competing interests must be carefully balanced by legislatures, courts and other law enforcement agencies according to prevailing circumstances. It cannot therefore be stated categorically that no type of criminal activity can justify inroads into civil liberties no matter how extreme the circumstances. Accordingly, while the Government would understand and appreciate the views attributed to Mr Temby, each situation must be determined on its own merits.