Monday, 14 October 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 Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Rae (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government's failure to correct the anomalies arising from the application of the assets test on pensioners, with the failure of the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill to repeal the assets test, is causing unnecessary hardship for Australia's aged, particularly those living in rural areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hawke Government will itself take action to repeal its iniquitous and anomalous test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (from 519 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals. (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 24 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to the health and well-being and ecology of the Earth and its citizens. By-products of uranium are toxic for periods of up to 500,000 years, and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons. Existing safeguards are inadequate, and are not properly monitored. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australian territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable senators will take cognisance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 152 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 enquiry 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 18 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 deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 72 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the actions of the Australian Workers Union and the Builders Labourers Federation which, because of their dispute at the Newcastle grain silos, are threatening the export of the 1985 Australian wheat harvest; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to intervene to force the two unions to stop their industrial sabotage and return to work. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government's plans to expand the submarine and port facilities at Jervis Bay, with the probable increase in visits by nuclear-powered and armed warships and submarines, and the increased danger such visits will pose to the population, both as a safety hazard and as a nuclear target, as well as the social and environmental problems such visits will cause; (b) condemns the consequences of such visits as part of the increased militarisation of the region and Australia's role as part of the United States' nuclear war fighting capability; (c) criticises the plans of the Department of Defence to establish a munitions base at Jervis Bay on land proposed as part of a national park system; (d) deplores the irreparable environmental damage these proposals and plans for Jervis Bay, including the dredging of Hare Bay, will have on the unique marine and foreshore ecosystem of the area; (e) calls on the Department of Defence, the Royal Australian Navy, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other relevant Commonwealth and State agencies, to enter into a process of full consultation with local councils and community groups, especially the affected Aboriginal people, prior to any decision being made; (f) calls for the dedication of already proposed national parks, nature and marine reserves and the preparation of a regional environmental plan for State lands within the environs of Jervis Bay; (g) requests the equivalent planning for the Commonwealth lands of Jervis Bay which would include details of Department of Defence intentions and management proposals for natural areas and that management practices for all conservation areas in or near Jervis Bay be co-ordinated; and (h) demands that no nuclear materials be stored or used in or near Jervis Bay and no nuclear-armed or powered warships, submarines or aircraft be allowed into Jervis Bay. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Film Censorship Board-Report on Activities for 1984. 2. The Human Rights of Australian-born children-Report by the Human Rights Commission on the complaint of Mr and Mrs M. Yilmaz-together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report-pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. 3. Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983-Annual Report 1984-85-pursuant to section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983. 4. Fisheries Agreement-between the Commonwealth of Australia and Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild. 5. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement on Expenditure for August 1985. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I inform the Senate that Senator Grimes left on 12 October for official duties in Thailand and Europe. He will return to Australia on 3 November. During his absence the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will be Acting Minister for Community Services. Any questions in this chamber which would normally be directed to Senator Grimes in relation to his portfolio or those which he represents should be directed to Senator Ryan. Any questions in relation to the management of Government business in the Senate should be directed to me. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the constant, wrongful and unmanly attempts of the Prime Minister and Senator Button to pass the blame for the Bicentenary debacle to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, I ask: Does not the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980 vest in the responsible Minister-in this case, the Prime Minister-the full authority over policies and expenditures? If the Minister is in any doubt, I direct his attention to sections 6 and 11 of the Act. Senator Chipp —Answer that in a manly fashion. Come on now. Get a grip on yourself. Senator BUTTON —I will try to answer it in a manly fashion. I notice that in an article in the Australian last week, Senator Chaney said that I had been given half marks for industry policy. I think I should answer it in a manly fashion in view of the continual prefect monitoring of our performance by Senator Chaney. First of all, there have not been attempts by me-and I would like Senator Chaney to point to them if he can-to blame the Prime Minister's Department for any matters relating to the Bicentennial Authority. Perhaps he can refresh his memory from last Question Time, if he wants to do so on that issue. The position regarding the Prime Minister's Department's misplacement of a letter has already been dealt with in the House of Representatives and was, of course, dealt with by a senior and respected officer of the Prime Minister's Department in a letter or minute which was sent to the Prime Minister. While the Bicentennial Authority Act vests policy responsibility in the appropriate Minister, I would point out that the question of financial responsibility as dealt with in that Act, as I recall it, goes to the questions of appropriations made in respect of the Bicentennial Authority as they are connected to policy. I have not perused the Act recently myself, but I would remind honourable senators that in respect of the recent incident regarding the Bicentennial Authority, it was the view of the Prime Minister, his advisers and Mr Reid, the Chairman of the Authority, that the negotiations of terms and conditions of termination of employment were the responsibility of the Chairman of the Authority. Senator CHANEY —If I may put a supplementary question, Mr President, is the Leader of the Government in the latter part of his answer denying that Mr Reid sought the authority of the Prime Minister under that Act for the disbursement of the moneys to Dr Armstrong? Senator BUTTON —I do not think that question implies a correct interpretation of the facts as I see them. As I understand it, from beginning to end the appropriation of an amount to cover the settlement for Dr Armstrong was not in question. It was agreed, as I understand it, early in the discussions that the Bicentennial Authority had within its current appropriations sufficient funds to accommodate that settlement. That, as I recall it, was given in evidence to the Senate Estimates Committee. Certainly that has been stated either there or in other documents of public record. But if Senator Chaney is concerned to press the point that Mr Reid, having arrived at a settlement with Dr Armstrong, then rang the Prime Minister to inform him about it, of course that is correct. That is a matter of public record too. Senator Chaney —He wrote asking for authority. Senator BUTTON —Mr Reid wrote asking for authority in terms of the final amount of the settlement on 28 August. The deed of settlement had been entered into on 23 August and signed by Mr Reid on behalf of the Bicentennial- Senator Walters —Don't leave that out. Senator BUTTON —May I answer Senator Chaney's question without Senator Walters's silly mooing? On 28 August Mr Reid wrote to the Prime Minister seeking approval for the final terms of settlement. I make the point that a deed of settlement had been entered into on 23 August, as I recall the evidence. That deed was not, of course, enclosed in the letter to the Prime Minister on the 28th and that was a matter of some disappointment. Senator AULICH —My question, which is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the visit to Europe by the then Tasmanian Minister for Industry and Small Business, Neil Robson, during February 1984. During a visit to the Australian Embassy in Geneva did Mr Robson give the staff a parcel which he said contained important government documents and ask them to send it through the diplomatic bag to Tasmania? Was the parcel subsequently X-rayed and impounded by Australian Customs and found to contain airline give-aways such as cakes of soap, sample shampoo sachets and disposable razors, as well as items of Mr Robson's clothing? On his return to Australia did Mr Robson receive a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs which was severely critical of his blatant abuse of diplomatic privilege, explaining that the diplomatic bag was to be used only for sensitive and highly important documents and demanding payment of approximately $60 for the handling and freight of the parcel? Did Mr Robson then delay for some six weeks before he made the required payment to the Collector of Customs? If Mr Robson did, in fact, use the diplomatic bag for the free transport of razors, soap, underpants and hair shampoo, has the Government taken steps to ensure that there will be no repetition of the Rexona hair affair? Senator GARETH EVANS —The facts of this matter are as follows: Mr Robson visited the Australian Embassy in Berne and handed in a plastic container for return to Australia. He assured the officer in Berne that it contained documentary material relating to an European Management Forum symposium he had attended at Davos. The parcel was not X-rayed. However, it was inspected and impounded by Australian Customs. It was found to contain sample toiletries, toys and socks. On 2 May 1984 a letter was sent to Mr Robson advising him that costs amounting to $60.37 had been incurred in returning the case from Berne to Tasmania and he was requested to reimburse the Department of Foreign Affairs this amount. On 24 July 1984 Mr Robson's executive officer forwarded the Minister's cheque to the Department. Strict instructions have been forwarded to all overseas posts specifying that only official items can be forwarded in the diplomatic bag. Any items of a personal nature must be forwarded by commercial means at the explicit cost of the consignee. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the constant wrongful and unmanly attempts of the Prime Minister and Senator Button to pass the blame for the Bicentennial debacle to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, I ask: Is it not the full responsibility of the Government to scrutinise, modify or reject all estimates of proposed expenditure submitted by the Authority and to determine the appropriations for each financial year? If this is so, are not the Government and particularly the responsible Minister-in this case, Mr Hawke-wholly responsible for any alleged extravagances or wastefulness in the Authority? Senator BUTTON —The cabal that has been meeting in a Senate meeting room determining not only the contents of the question but also its language-`this wrongful and unmanly attempt by the Prime Minister and Senator Button'-- Senator Chaney —Quite right. How would you describe it, right and manly? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Chaney, you have asked a question and a supplementary question. I ask you to let Senator Button make a reply. Senator BUTTON —There is some advantage, I would have thought, even with this Opposition having some elegance in the language it uses. The repetition of banal phrases will not get it very far, I would not think. Be that as it may, of course it is the responsibility of the Parliament to approve the estimates for any department or authority of the Government on each appropriate occasion. It is the responsibility of each Minister to scrutinise the overall level of expenditure. As I have already answered Senator Chaney, the question of approving the appropriation did not arise in the immediate context in which the recent matter of the Bicentennial payment to Dr Armstrong was approved, as I understand it. I think that is a matter of record. If Senator Messner reads the answer to the question asked by Senator Chaney he will find out the answer to his own question as well. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Notwithstanding Senator Button's answer, he must acknowledge that the Prime Minister is responsible for the general approval of the estimates for the Bicentennial Authority. Senator BUTTON —Of course any Minister is responsible for the whole program in respect of any authority which he administers. That has not been denied by anybody. Senator McINTOSH —Can the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm media reports that 12 Irian Jayan refugees were forcibly repatriated from Papua New Guinea in the past few days? If so, can the Government ascertain the reasons for this repatriation? In view of the reports of ill-treatment of refugees by Indonesian authorities, will the Government be taking any steps to ensure that refugees will not be repatriated against their will? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government has noted the return of 12 Irianese to the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya by the Government of Papua New Guinea. At this stage the Government does not have full details relating to this return but media reports have stated that the 12 were gaoled on their return. I understand that the Indonesian Government's policy is that Irianese border crossers who have broken Indonesian laws will be tried on their return to Irian Jaya. The Government is seeking further information on the circumstances surrounding the return of the 12 and their subsequent treatment. All I can perhaps usefully add is that the Government remains concerned at any suggestion of discrimination against the Melanesian population of Irian Jaya and has indicated to the Indonesian authorities its belief that Melanesian aspirations and cultural values should be accommodated within the framework of Indonesia's national development. We have also indicated our hope that the transmigration program in Irian Jaya will be conducted in such a way as to avoid any adverse effects for Irian Jaya's Melanesian population. Senator CHIPP —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. Is the proposed boundary of the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park on the zoning plan now before the Parliament to the east of the boundary originally proposed in 1983? Was the boundary moved to the east solely to accommodate the interests of a mining company which wishes to build a jetty and export mineral sands to Japan from a point nearby? Is the alteration to the proposed boundary of the northern section an indication of a willingness on the part of the Government to restrict the area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in order to accommodate the interests of mining companies and the Queensland Government? Senator RYAN —The answer to the first part of Senator Chipp's question is no. The boundary of the far north section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is as it was proclaimed on 31 August 1983. The answer to the second part of his question is also no. However, in the far northern section draft zoning plan, released for public comment in April 1984, Shelburne Bay was zoned marine national park `B' in order to protect its sea-grass beds which are prime dugong habitat. As a result of submissions received during the public review period a small area has been changed to less restrictive general use `A' zoning. In the view of Dr Helene Marsh, a recognised expert on dugong, this small area is neither primary nor secondary dugong habitat. The answer to Senator Chipp's third question is also no. In accordance with requirements under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, public representations on the draft zoning plan for the far northern section of the marine park were invited during April-July 1984. One hundred and seventy-seven representations were received and the zoning plan was revised, where appropriate, to take the representations into account. I should make it clear to the Senate and to the people of Australia, and particularly to those in the conservation movement, that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is not ignoring advice from anyone in relation to the marine park, particularly advice from experts. Moreover, I am advised that the Authority does not cave in to pressure from developmental interests when those interests are inimical to the object of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the objectives of the Authority, which are to ensure that reasonable use of the marine park is provided for consistent with conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. Honourable senators should be aware that the balancing of these two considerations is the essence of the zoning procedures which, incidentally, is the essence of the national conservation strategy and the world conservation strategy. I am further advised that this sometimes means that activities are permitted in the marine park which some people think should not be allowed. Conversely, it also means that activities which are considered reasonable by some people are not permitted. Honourable senators should also appreciate that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is, as a matter of law, only able to take into account considerations which are relevant to the marine park in making zoning and other decisions. The effects of any jetty or shipping movements on the marine park would clearly be relevant and would be taken into account before any decision was made to permit those activities. On the other hand, a development on an area outside the marine park which does not affect the marine park could not be taken into account by the Authority in decision making. Senator Jessop —I take a point of order. Mr President, you have said repeatedly that answers to questions should be short. It seems to me that the Minister is making a ministerial statement. I believe that she should not present her reply in this way. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. It is my understanding that the Minister is responding to the points raised by Senator Chipp in his question. At this stage certainly she is not debating the matter. I call the Minister. Senator RYAN —Mr President, just before I was interrupted by Senator Jessop I had concluded the answer. I think Senator Chipp's question is of general interest to the Senate and to the Australian public. I was pleased, on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, to give Senator Chipp the information which he sought. I will undertake to do so again should Senator Chipp seek further information on this very important matter of national significance. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Further to my question on domiciliary nursing services on 12 September 1985, the Minister should be aware of statements made by the honourable member for Franklin, Mr Goodluck, and others, contained in various Tasmanian newspapers over the weekend and this morning, to the effect that veterans will be disadvantaged by the new domiciliary nursing arrangements being negotiated with the Tasmanian Government. Would the Minister outline current developments and repeat assurances to veterans that they will not be disadvantaged by any new arrangements? Senator GIETZELT —I recall Senator Devlin asking a question about changes that are taking place in respect of domiciliary nursing in Tasmania. I indicated at that time my preference for negotiations to be entered into with the Tasmanian Government. Any notion, therefore, that veterans in Tasmania will be disadvantaged by the new arrangements, as stated by Mr Goodluck, is very distressful to veterans. I regard it as baseless, contemptible and illogical because the purpose of the negotiations was in fact to meet the wishes of the Tasmanian Government and its Minister, Mr Cleary. In fact, such agreement has been reached, literally on every point. I only hope that the Liberal Party can get its act together. In the interests of goodwill between the two governments, I have responded to negotiations and requests made by the Tasmanian Minister for Health, and those negotiations have been very fruitful. They have been designed to maintain the highest standard of nursing of aged veterans in Tasmania and, of course, they are in accordance with negotiations taking place in all States of the Commonwealth. A degree of consensus has been reached at both officer and ministerial level. That is a matter of great achievement, and not one which deserves the inflammatory and distressful remarks made by Mr Goodluck. I stress again the changes I referred to previously. The efficiency audit, carried out by my Department, concluded that the cost to my Department of domiciliary services was considerably higher in Tasmania than the national standard, and, consequently, we had an obligation to find out the reason why. The only point of contention that still remains to be concluded, is the matter of the employment of those nurses employed under the old scheme in a way which will give security of tenure, workers compensation, superannuation benefits and so on. I have an undertaking from the Tasmanian Minister that those problems will be ironed out to the satisfaction of the nurses currently employed. There is no question that the existing nurses have carried out a satisfactory service over the years, but the costs of that service exceeded the national average and we were therefore entitled to improve the costing aspect of it. I am somewhat astounded that Tasmanian Liberals would suggest that we are traversing new ground and acting in a way detrimental to the welfare of veterans. I repeat what I said on a previous occasion. We have a preference to enter into arrangements with the State governments in respect of such matters, and those arrangements have been concluded very satisfactorily with the Tasmanian Minister for Health. Senator SHORT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's refusal to accept any ministerial responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority debacle. When the Prime Minister assumed responsibility for the Authority in December 1984, and thereby took over from Mr Cohen more than 800 files relating to the Authority, its policies and expenditure, did he order that a study be made of those files and that a report be presented to him of their broad nature and any deficiencies? If so, what was the nature of the report and what action did the Prime Minister take on it? Senator BUTTON —I would like to congratulate Senator Short on his intellectual deftness by deleting the words `wrongly' and `unmanly' from his question, wherever they might appear. As Senator Short knows, the 800 files were taken over by the Prime Minister's Department from the Department of Home Affairs and Environment in December 1984 and January 1985. I am unaware of whether the Prime Minister ordered a study, in terms of Senator Short's question, which produced a report. I will seek that information. It seems to me most unlikely that the Prime Minister ordered a study, and it is most unlikely that when any files are taken over from one department to another the responsible Minister in this Government, or in any government, orders a study, as Senator Short puts it. But I will find out about the particular circumstances and provide an answer as soon as possible. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his answer, but would he not agree that the ordering of such a study and report would simply constitute a normal and essential exercise of ministerial responsibility? Senator BUTTON —No, I would not agree with that. I regard it as a responsibility which may from time to time be assumed in any transfer by officers of the Australian Public Service, but I would not regard it as an absolute necessity. I am sure that plenty of former Ministers sitting opposite would be fully aware of that circumstance. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to Press reports that hundreds of Australians have asked for tickets for the entire tour of South Africa by the rebel team led by Kim Hughes; and, further, that 15 Australian cricket writers have asked for accreditation for the duration of that tour? In light of the Australian Government's view of the South African tour, has any action been taken, or is any proposed to be taken, to alert any person planning such a tour of the Government's view? Would seeking accreditation be in accordance with the code of conduct for Australian businesses when dealing with South Africa? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am confident that I have an answer to Senator Jones. If he waits until the end of Question Time I am sure that I will be able to find it. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the attempts of the Prime Minister and Senator Button to pass the blame for the Bicentennial debacle to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Bicentennial Authority, I ask: Since December 1984, when the Prime Minister assumed responsibility for the Authority, has there been in existence in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet a special secretariat responsible to the Prime Minister for the functioning of the Authority? How many changes have been made in the secretariat during the lifetime of the Hawke Government? When was the last change made? Was it extensive? How long before 15 August, the date the Prime Minister ordered the termination of Dr Armstrong's services, was the last change made? Senator BUTTON —Senator Brownhill has rephrased his question with the customary deftness that we have come to expect from him, following the example of Senator Short. Since December 1984 a branch of the Prime Minister's Department relating to the Bicentennial matters has been in existence. Senator Brownhill asks how many changes there have been in the lifetime of the Hawke Government in Public Service administration or liaison with the Bicentennial Authority. As I recall, the Bicentennial Authority began its life under the wing of the Department of Administrative Services. It then went to the Department of Home Affairs and the Environment and, subsequently, in December 1984 it went to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator Brownhill also asked how long before 15 August 1985 were changes made in the appropriate division or branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the Bicentennial Authority. I am unable to say because I am not quite sure what the honourable senator means by that question. I am sure that there have been changes of personnel and so on. The only major changes which have taken place have been those recently announced by the Prime Minister, whereby the section has been brought up to its full strength of 15 personnel. Prior to that I think that there were no major changes. But I will have that checked out. Senator COATES —Has the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women seen comments in the Hobart Mercury from an opponent of this Government once again misrepresenting the Government's affirmative action proposals? Will the Minister therefore restate whether the proposed legislation strikes at the heart of the principle of recruitment and promotion on the basis of merit, as suggested? Does the legislation represent the first step in the direction of quotas, despite the Government's clear statement to the contrary? Senator RYAN —I do not know how often mischievous people are going to misrepresent the facts about the Government's affirmative action policy, and I do not know how long media outlets will be prepared to promote these totally misleading ideas. The whole point of the Government's approach to affirmative action in private sector employment is to establish a situation in which women may be judged on their merits. If Mrs Holmes would care to address herself to the progress report put out by the Office of the Status of Women Affirmative Action Resource Unit, which reported in some detail on the affirmative action pilot program, she would gain an understanding of what our Government means by affirmative action for women in employment in the private sector. What it means, very briefly, is this: Under our approach to affirmative action, large employers in the private sector will undertake a systematic review and analysis of their recruitment, employment, promotion and training policies to ensure that women are not being excluded from opportunities in training and employment on criteria other than merit, for example, that they are not being denied the opportunity for technical or managerial training on an assumption that they may leave the employment to have children, that they have children and their children may get sick making them unable to fulfil their terms of employment, or any other criteria of these kinds which are not applied to men in a similar circumstance. I remind the Senate, and Senator Coates will perhaps remind Mrs Holmes, that the working party brought down a consensus report on this matter. The reason why there has been such general support, and even enthusiasm, for the Government's approach to affirmative action on the part of the Business Council of Australia and the Confederation of Australian Industry is that they appreciate that it is in the interests of an employer to recruit and promote on merit. They appreciate the fact that our approach will mean that the pool of eligible talent for any particular position will be much larger if women can get into that pool. Once in the pool, of course, they will be assessed on their capacity to do the job, as men have been, and the best person will get the job. In many cases the best person will continue to be a male person. Now under the new arrangements, the best person will turn out to be a woman much more often than in the past when there was structural discrimination against women. Those of us who are concerned that people should get jobs on their merits should recognise that the whole purpose of our approach to affirmative action is to develop a situation in private employment, as we are already doing in the public sector, whereby, in regard to acceptance to train as an apprentice, acceptance for employment with promotion possibilities or acceptance for on the job training in blue collar, white collar or managerial areas, women will not be discounted simply because they are women, because they are married or because they have children, but their particular capacities to do the job will be assessed and the decision will be made on merit. I would be very grateful if Senator Coates passed that information on to Mrs Holmes and to the Mercury. This has been clearly the Government's intention from the outset, and it really is rather discouraging to find people who ought to know better persisting in misrepresenting the objectives of the Government's approach. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw attention to the presence in the Presidential Gallery of former Senator Gordon Davidson from South Australia. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to him a warm and friendly welcome upon his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the constant, wrongful and unpersonable attempts of the Prime Minister and Senator Button to pass the blame for the Bicentennial debacle to the Prime Minister's Department and to the Australian Bicentennial Authority, I ask: Did the Prime Minister during the period between his instruction on 15 August to terminate Dr Armstrong's services and the final settlement on 30 August seek the advice of the Solicitor-General or any other law officers or accountant? If so, when and whom? Did the Prime Minister seek any advice from his Department before 28 August as to the terms of severance of Dr Armstrong's employment or ask for a copy of the terms of Dr Armstrong's employment, which were in his Department at all relevant times? If so, when, and what was the advice he received? Senator BUTTON —Having regard to Senator Baume's past career as a publicist of some note, I would have thought that the word `unpersonable' would not help very much. It is not a word that journalists will pick up. It is not a very euphonic sort of expression. Perhaps the honourable senator should try something else. In respect of each of the questions asked by Senator Baume, those questions have been answered by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives and are a matter of record in the House of Representatives Hansard. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. Have decisions been made by the Minister and the Western Australian Government in relation to the development of the Old Leighton Battery site which overlooks Fremantle and which is presently owned by the Commonwealth? To whom will the site be sold, for what price and what is the intended use after sale? Senator GIETZELT —Negotiations by the Federal Government have been proceeding for some time with the Western Australian Government and agreement has been reached that a decision in relation to the Old Leighton Battery site will be concluded in a very short period. The site, I understand, is situated on Buckland Hill overlooking Fremantle. The Australian Government has reached agreement with the Western Australian Government that the site should be developed to provide a mix of recreational parkland facilities and public and private housing; thus the future use of the site will be for the benefit of the people of Western Australia. The site has a potential value of $9.5m. I think the Australian Government has indicated to the Western Australian Premier that it is considering a price which is not less than half that amount in respect of the actual purchase price by the Western Australian Government. The State, in negotiations, has nominated the Western Australian Development Corporation to oversee the development. That Corporation has agreed that the price that it will recommend to the Western Australian Government will reflect the market value on the proposed mix that I have referred to. Consequently, the process is such that very shortly agreement will be reached. As I indicated in answer to a question last week, the Government is trying to expedite negotiations with the States in regard to the sale of a number of Commonwealth properties. I refer to Tasman Island in Tasmania, the arrangements in respect of foreshore land on Sydney Harbour and this site in Western Australia. We are confident that agreement will be reached within the next few weeks. Senator PETER RAE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has recently trebled the actual number of public servants in the section of his Department dealing with the Australian Bicentennial Authority? Will extra staff be recruited to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to handle the work previously done by the transferred officers? What will be the cost to the taxpayers of this action of the Prime Minister, which is the latest of his efforts to escape personal responsibility for his gross mishandling of the Bicentennial fiasco? Senator WALSH —As I understand it, the Prime Minister is seeking roughly a doubling of the staff resources allocated to the ABA. I received-I am not sure whether it was last Thursday or Friday-a letter from the Prime Minister which referred not only to the proposed numbers but also the staff profile that he was proposing for the ABA. It has been transferred to the Secretary of the Department of Finance and I expect it to be dealt with probably before the end of this week. Senator PETER RAE —I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister answer the final part of the question: What will be the cost if the request is acceded to? Senator WALSH —At this stage I cannot answer that. Senator SIBRAA —Can the Minister for Fin- ance advise the Senate of the results of the Government's review of the so-called loan back arrangements made by the previous Government under which Telecom Australia was allowed to retain part of its annual employer superannuation contributions to the Commonwealth? Senator WALSH —When Telecom was first established in 1975 the funds for its capital expenditure were provided in the Budget. At some later time, if I recall correctly, there was a mixture for capital funding of internally generated funds, Budget funds and funds borrowed. The borrowed funds, whether they came from the Budget appropriation or not of course would be counted directly or indirectly in the public sector borrowing requirement. Telecom, along with a number of other statutory authorities, has also paid annually to the Commonwealth a contribution to cover the superannuation liabilities of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme which is responsible for Telecom employees. Those payments by Telecom are regarded as financial transactions and do not therefore affect the Budget deficit. I expect to be making a comprehensive statement before very long on not only Telecom's superannuation arrangements but also those of other statutory authorities. However, in 1978 when Mr Howard was presenting his first Budget, he resorted to fiscal chicanery to achieve a cosmetic reduction in both government spending and the deficit. The practice that he adopted then continued until 1982. The practice he adopted was to loan back notionally to Telecom the contributions it had paid into the Commonwealth superannuation scheme to cover the liability. The loan backs were interest free loans which had no contractual basis, for which there was no formal repayment obligation and which were never authorised by Parliament. The purpose and effect of that prime example of shonky accountancy was to conceal the true size of the deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement. By the time Mr Howard was removed from office during the 1982-83 financial year, he had deceitfully concealed in total some $500m of what should have showed as both the deficit-- Senator Puplick —I raise a point of order. Use of the word `deceitful' in relation to an honourable member in another place is quite unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT —Order! I must admit that my attention was diverted for one moment. If the Minister used that expression in relation to an honourable member in another place I ask him to withdraw it. Senator WALSH —If that is regarded by you as unparliamentary, of course I withdraw it, Mr President. Perhaps I could say that he unmanfully concealed-- Senator Button —And wrongfully. Senator WALSH —He wrongfully concealed in aggregate $500m which ought to have appeared in the deficit and on outlays, in the public sector borrowing requirement or a mixture of both. That was the situation which this Government inherited. In the 1983 Budget the arrangement was formalised by the present Government and Telecom was required to pay interest on that so-called loan back arrangement. In 1984 further loans were discontinued and repayments of the loans advanced during the Howard period as Treasurer have commenced. As I said earlier, I expect to make a more comprehensive statement on this matter, certainly before the Parliament resumes, in which, in a more formal way, I will expose the fiscal chicanery to which the discredited former Treasurer resorted in order to distort, conceal and misrepresent the true level of Commonwealth outlays, the deficit and the public sector borrowing requirement. Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I raise a point of order. For the same reasons as were given before, I seek to have the word `chicanery' and the other words withdrawn, particularly in view of the fact that, as Senator Walsh well knows, evidence in relation to that was given to a committee of which he was a member at a public hearing before his Party took over government. The PRESIDENT —Order! I think that the use of the word `chicanery' does impute dishonesty on the part of a member of the Parliament. Therefore, I ask the Minister to withdraw the expression. Senator WALSH —If that is your wish, Mr President, of course I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —It is my wish. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance both in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to a statement made by the Treasurer when he introduced the tax package. The Treasurer said: An independent inquiry has been established to examine the impact of the White Paper proposal on the gold mining industry. In the Senate last week, on 9 October, in a pitiful attempt to answer a question I put to Senator Walsh, he said: The fact, as Senator Durack knows very well, is that the Government has set up a study regarding the taxing of gold or the future taxation status of gold mining. I might say that I am not aware of that study having been set up. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question. Senator DURACK —I ask the Minister: Has the committee been established? If so, when was it established? Who are the members of it? Has it met? What are the terms of reference? Senator WALSH —I am astounded that Senator Durack should see fit to raise this question again. There can be only one possible reason for raising it, because Senator Durack knows the facts very well. He has raised it because he believes the discredited Liberal Party of Western Australia might be able to get a bit of political mileage out of this issue. They are common tactics, but what I find astounding is that the present leader of the Liberal Party is reported in the Kalgoorlie Miner of 6 August this year as follows: Speaking at a Minerals and Energy Club of Australia luncheon in Brisbane, Mr Howard said that he doubted if gold could retain its privileged tax-free status for very much longer. Senator Chaney, writing in the Australian on 17 February 1984, said: Since gold no longer has any particular monetary significance it is a commodity like any other, its price being determined by the market. Neither the magic and mythology of its history nor economic logic justify the special treatment of gold. I would have thought that those quotations established very clearly that the Liberal Party has every intention of ending the tax-free status of gold. When the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, was bailed up in Perth four days after Mr Howard made his statement signalling that the Opposition, if it ever returned to government, would tax gold-in response to remarks by the Federal Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters who was reported to have said that he would not guarantee that a future Liberal government would not tax gold-Mr Peacock said that he would guarantee that a Liberal government would not tax gold. Since then we all know that Mr Peacock has been deposed as Liberal Party Leader and has been replaced by Mr Howard. Therefore, one would assume that Mr Howard's assurances are not the same as Mr Peacock's. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order. The Minister has not yet touched upon the matter which was raised in the question, which was the question of whether the Government has established a committee, which it undertook to do when it brought down its statement. He is simply debating the question and I believe you should call him to order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to respond to the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. It is not my fault if mugs on the Opposition front bench insist on leading with their chin. The fact, as Senator Durack knows very well-it is set out quite clearly in the Treasurer's statement of 19 September-is that the Government has decided not to adopt the White Paper proposal on the taxing of gold. The Treasurer said that an independent inquiry had been established to examine the impact of the taxation question on the gold industry and that it was expected to report in the first half of 1986. I do not know whether a meeting has been held. I will inquire of the Treasurer and let Senator Durack know. Senator DURACK —If I may ask a supplementary question, the Minister has indulged in the greatest bit of obfuscation- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his supplementary question? Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: It seems to be open to have endless obfuscation in answers in this place and a small preliminary comment in a question is objected to. I would ask for some evenhandedness in this matter. The PRESIDENT —Order! Question Time is limited to an hour. There have been five supplementary questions to date, and I do not deny anyone the right to ask supplementary questions, but if we allow supplementary questions to become supplementary statements, the matter gets completely out of hand. I have asked endlessly for honourable senators to keep their questions as short as possible, and I have also asked Ministers to respond as expeditiously and as briefly as possible. I ask everyone to adopt those rules and then everyone will get a fair go. Senator DURACK —I asked the Minister four questions. He has answered only one of them-and in fact he has not answered that. I asked when was the committee established, who are the members of it, has it met and what are its terms of reference. Senator WALSH —I can only repeat the answer I gave before. I will inquire of the Treasurer and let Senator Durack know. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women. Has the Government given priority in implementation of the affirmative action policy to the advanced education sector? If so, what is the reason for this, and what progress has been made so far towards this goal? Senator RYAN —Yes; the phasing in arrangements decided on by the Government on affirmative action will involve coverage of the higher education institutions first-that is, we expect to have the legislation passed early next year and higher education institutions will be covered from then. In the next year the coverage will extend to corporations that employ more than 1,000 employees, after that to corporations that employ more than 500 employees, and then, last, to corporations that employ more than 100 employees. The reason for starting with higher education institutions is fundamentally a practical one. Many higher education institutions already have affirmative action programs under way. All institutions in New South Wales are already covered by the New South Wales legislation, although it is the view of representatives of higher education that we should seek to have them covered by Federal legislation when it is enacted. But certainly that will be facilitated by the fact that all institutions in New South Wales are already required to develop affirmative action programs. It is the case that many other higher education institutions have voluntarily started to develop affirmative action. The processes are well under way and the job for the Government to set up a government monitoring agency and a form of communication with the participants in the program will be easier. It is also a fact that higher education has a very bad record when it comes to equal employment opportunities for women. If one makes a gender analysis of employment in higher education, the results will show that in many cases higher education institutions seem to have worse structural discrimination against women than some corporations, so the need is certainly there to act. There is also unanimous support from unions covering staff in higher education institutions and their co-operation is assured. We believe that the program will be most successfully implemented by starting with those organisations, many of which are already preparing to do this, and where there is widespread support. Great support was given to the Government's affirmative action pilot program by representatives of both higher education sectors. Professor Michael Birt, Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales and current Chairman of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, and Dr Graham Swain, the representative of the Australian College of Directors and Principals Association, were extremely constructive and gave a great deal of assistance to the work of the working party. So we believe that, in starting with higher education, our policy will be falling on fertile fields. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister seen the text of a major address given by Mr Duffy to the Public Conference on the Future of Australian Commercial Television on 30 September 1985? I ask whether, in that address, Mr Duffy stated: . . . the Government supports networking. We not only accept the ABT observation that `networks and networking are the heart and arteries of the commercial TV system', but we wish to do everything possible to encourage broadcasters to utilise satellite networking techniques . . . I note that the word `encourage' is underlined in the Minister's text. Does the Minister accept that this policy is fundamentally incompatible with any policy of localism? Is the Government now formally abandoning the principles laid down in the Oswin inquiry and its own previous commitment to support of localism in commercial broadcasting? Senator WALSH —I have been asked whether I have read Mr Duffy's speech of 30 September, and the answer is no, although I am sure that it was a very good speech. As I have not read it, I am not able either to confirm or to refute what Senator Puplick has said or the meaning he has ascribed to it. I will refer that to Mr Duffy for an answer. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a speech by the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John Stone, to the Mont Pelerin Society in which he asserted that the Commonwealth Public Service Board has been politicised under the Hawke Government? Can the Minister explain the facts of this matter and how Mr Stone's assertion fits with those facts? Senator WALSH —Yes, my attention has been drawn to the speech in question. In fact, I read the speech in question some weeks ago. In that speech Mr Stone asserted, among other things, that the Public Service Board, and I think one could say the Public Service in general, was politicised by this Labor Government and that some of those public servants who did the Labor Party's political dirty work were rewarded with extraordinary promotions. In support of that assertion he referred to the promotion of a division head to Public Service Board commissioner. In the speech he said: I cannot recall any previous examples of mere Division Heads, even from very senior Departments such as the Treasury or Prime Minister and Cabinet, ever before having been elevated overnight to the standing of Public Service Commissioner (which ranks equivalent to the lesser Departmental Heads in the Canberra hierarchical pecking order). In fact, the previous appointment prior to the appointment to which Mr Stone referred-that being the appointment of Mr Taylor-was an appointment of a mere division head, as Mr Stone put it, and he was promoted to Public Service Board commissioner. Moreover, since 1970 a total of 12 public servants of level 4 status or below-that is, mere division heads-have been appointed as secretaries to departments or the rank equivalent to secretaries to departments. In view of that, I find it rather ironic that Mr Stone should have written a letter to the editor of the West Australian of 5 October in which, among other things, he said: I am accustomed to politicians not only getting things wrong, but getting them wrong with some political purpose in mind. Therefore, when that letter and the Mont Pelerin address are looked at simultaneously, it can be seen that Mr Stone certainly got things wrong. Indeed, he backed up his central hypothesis with an assertion which was not only baseless but which he, as a former senior public servant, should also have known was baseless. One can only speculate on whether he did that, to use his words again, with some political purpose in mind. I invite him in his next diatribe to clarify whether he misstated the truth for political purposes or whether he was culpably ignorant. I say `culpably ignorant' because for a person in Mr Stone's position to be unaware of the facts I have outlined is, in my view, culpable. I suppose there is a third sad alternative and that is that cerebral deterioration has reached the point where Mr Stone should no longer be held responsible for his actions, which would give credence to recent rumours that he is about to become a National Party parliamentary candidate in Queensland. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the light of the confusion from apparently conflicting statements from the Government in relation to visits by United States Navy warships, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no request has been made to the United States Government to restrict the number of its ship visits to this country? Have restrictions of any sort been placed on rest and recreation visits by the USN to Western Australian ports? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer that question to the Minister for Defence whose responsibility it is. Senator Button —Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Senator Sanders-Mr President, I raise a point of order under standing order 998, which states: After Notices have been given Questions may be put to Ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and to other Senators, relating to any Bill, Motion or other public matter connected with the business on the Notice Paper, of which such Senators may have charge. Over and over again Question Time has been misused by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber and senators who have real questions to ask have not been given the time to ask them. I am sure that certain Ministers would like to have time to answer them. I ask that standing order 98 be adhered to. We, as members of this Parliament and representatives of the people, are being denied our rights to seek information from Ministers of the Crown. Senator Chaney-Mr President, I want to speak on the point of order because there has been some concern among Opposition senators about the asking of questions. On the figures which have been taken out it is quite clear that the Australian Democrats, including the honourable member who has just risen, have certainly had more than their proportional share of questions in this place. I do not object to that. I simply say that that is the way the numbers are running at present. I ask that in considering the point of order you consider whether there are some ways by which the excessive debating of questions could be terminated. I think that is a very significant problem in this place. I do not believe that there is a problem with respect to your allocation of questions among the parties. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Sanders has raised the general question of the conduct of Question Time. I have pointed out over and over again that it is possible for the Chair to have only a certain control over the length of questions and the type of comment contained in them. The Chair has only a certain amount of control over the way in which Ministers choose to answer questions. How questions are asked is a matter for the person asking the questions; how questions are answered is a matter for the Ministers answering them. Over and over again I have appealed to honourable senators asking questions and to Ministers answering them to keep their questions and answers as brief and to the point as possible so that everyone can get a fair go. I have tried to keep the balance of questions between the Opposition and members of the Australian Democrats, in proportion. I think I have done so fairly, on balance. From time to time it gets out of equilibrium. Today I tried to balance it. It will be noted and observed that the Democrats asked only one question today. Probably they will ask two questions tomorrow. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —by leave-Lest it be thought that members on this side of the chamber accept the description of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as being `wrongful and unmanly' in certain aspects of his conduct of office, I ask you, Mr President, to give consideration to circulating a letter to members of the Senate drawing attention to standing order 99 which prevents questions containing arguments, inferences, imputations or epithets and wed it to standing order 418 which speaks of highly disorderly conduct in casting personal reflections on members of another place. Also, it is quite wrongful to build into the opening gambit of a question descriptions of members of another place which are, as I say, highly disorderly and amount to an argument about the character of the Minister concerned which may well be a conclusion to flow from the answer but should not be put in the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw Senator Tate's attention to the fact that on the back of the sheets on which questions without notice can be written there are examples of the types of expressions that should or should not be used. I must say, though, that I have been concerned for some time at the type of looseness of speech or innuendo that might be involved both in some of the questions that are asked and in some of the answers that are given. It is my intention, hopefully this week, to have a discussion with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition and Senator Chipp about the general manner in which some of the innuendoes are being thrown around this chamber. I hope that this practice can cease. Senator Walters —Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Cook —No. The PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —During Question Time Senator Jones asked me a question about reports of journalists and others going to South Africa for the Hughes rebel cricket tour. I now have in front of me the brief relevant to that question. My attention has been drawn to those reports that a number of Australians and sports writers will be in South Africa to follow the Australian rebel cricket tour. The Government's policies on sporting contacts with South Africa are well known and have been publicly stated on too many occasions recently to need repetition now. The Australian code of business conduct, which is still in draft form and has not yet come into operation, is concerned with the operation of Australian companies having commercial or other interests in South Africa. So the accreditation of Australian journalists to cover events in South Africa would not appear to be relevant to the operations of that code of conduct. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Peter Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Federal Labor Government, in common with the New South Wales Labor Government, to provide adequate emergency relief for the poor. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.13) —Mr President, my State of New South Wales is in the midst of a welfare crisis of the most severe proportions. That is the reason we are asking the Senate today to debate this matter of public importance in the terms which you have just read out. Senator Robertson —Not because Senator Grimes is away! Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested that the Labor Whip seeks to interject at this stage. Maybe he does not care about the crisis which is occurring in my State and which I am now going to set out. The Sydney Morning Herald of Saturday 12 October contained a front page story by a very senior reporter, Mr Graham Williams, which identified the dimensions of the crisis we face. The story, which appeared under the chilling headline `NSW 1985: soup-kitchens reject the hungry', commenced as follows: Thirty hungry people were refused a meal at the big soup-kitchen run by the Hare Krishna community at Darlinghurst on Wednesday when it ran out of food-rice, mung beans and spiced vegetables-for the first time in five years, after record queues of poor people arrived to be fed. And not far away, the Smith Family central office at Darlinghurst had to close its doors two hours early on Tuesday and Wednesday, for the first time turning away scores of people seeking urgent assistance. Most of these people had previously been rejected by the NSW Government welfare officers in the crackdown on emergency relief which has resulted from the wrangle between State and Federal governments over who is responsible for the payments. That sets out some of the dimensions of the crisis. The facts of the matter do not seem to be in dispute. It seems that there genuinely is a crisis. It seems that the flow of emergency funds genuinely has dried up. It seems that the Hare Krishnas have had vastly increased numbers just seeking some food and that the Smith Family has had unprecedented calls. Other voluntary agencies across my State to which those in dire need have had to turn are also running out of resources. This is genuinely a matter of public importance; it is genuinely a matter which warrants discussion by the Senate, for the problem rests with the macho Ministers in two Labor governments who cannot get their acts together and who are using the poor as pawns and hostages. It needs fixing. Why have the numbers catered for by the voluntary agencies increased by over 50 per cent in recent weeks? Why have they increased so much, particularly since 1 October? This is a matter of genuine public importance. In the Sydney Morning Herald of last Saturday, the General Secretary of the Smith Family, Mr Bob Turner, said: The situation is now desperate and it will get worse, much worse. At the Hare Krishna kitchen, Siddartha Das said: We had ten days of very big queues before we ran out of food. We just didn't expect such huge numbers. The article went on: A check by the Herald shows that a crisis of need is building up throughout Sydney since the State Government-- that is, the Labor Government in New South Wales- stopped its $6.8m a year emergency assistance to the needy on October 1. Can you believe it? The State Labor Government has stopped its emergency assistance to the needy, and this has brought on the crisis. It has come about because of a callous power play between two Labor governments-one in New South Wales and one in Canberra-over who is responsible. It is almost unbelievable to see two Labor governments brawling, with the poorest in society as the hostages in the game. It is this conflict between Ministers at each level-both probably on salaries of more than $80,000-with the needy as their hostages which is so immoral and which needs relief now. I am attracted to today's Sydney Morning Herald which has as its cartoon a very unedifying picture of a Labor Minister in New South Wales, Mr Walker, and a Labor Minister in Canberra, Senator Grimes, arm wrestling, with the poor caught in their fists, while on the wall is an old quotation, which some will know is to be found on the Statue of Liberty: `Give me your poor, your helpless.' Give the poor and helpless to them! In New South Wales they will go hungry and they will go without because these governments have not got their acts together. This kind of conflict is exposing the needy to starvation and deprivation. The fact is that the New South Wales Government, in its recent Budget, reduced its spending on emergency relief in the welfare area from something over $8m a year to just over $5m. This was the first step in its decision to phase out completely emergency relief to most of the needy. Each side-the State Labor Government and the Commonwealth Labor Government-says that the other one should bear the responsibility. That in itself can be determined in the fullness of time. Someone needs to undertake the responsibility. I do not wish to enter that argument. I wish only to examine what they are saying, perhaps to examine what Senator Grimes has said, to come back to the plight of the needy, which is so dramatically before those of us who represent New South Wales, and to ask that something be done. I say with vehemence that I do not want to enter the agrument about who should pay; let the Ministers work that one out. We know that on one side Mr Frank Walker, the New South Wales Labor Minister, says that emergency assistance is a responsibility of the Federal Government. He said: All the people who need emergency funds are already recipients of Commonwealth benefits-this simply goes to show that Commonwealth benefits are inadequate. The only editorial comment that I would add is that if that is his justification for making it a Federal responsibility he had better go back to law school and study some more logic. Perhaps he has also forgotten the mutual contribution and responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States; and perhaps he has forgotten particularly the contribution of the Labor Government in New South Wales to bringing on this crisis. My colleague Senator Puplick later will draw more attention to the role of the New South Wales Government, by the charges that it has imposed on the poorest in New South Wales, in bringing on this crisis. We know that Mr Walker's view is shared in other parts of Australia. Mrs Toner, the former Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, is on record as saying: One of the main platforms of the Labor Government was to get the Federal Government to assume its responsibilities on income security. The voluntary agencies and the State Government are continually having to top up the deficiencies caused by inadequate Federal benefits. Again, that is an oversimplistic analysis by a Labor Minister. There is no doubt where she and Mr Walker stand. But they are not alone in this view. Senator Grimes, before he became Minister for Social Security and now Minister for Community Services, was the Opposition spokesman in this area. In April 1982, while in Opposition, Senator Grimes had no doubt about where things stood. We were then the Federal Government and he said about us: The Federal Government must take responsibility for its dependants who cannot survive on the benefits they are paid. This means that payments should be raised to a reasonable level so that people do not have to do without. I quote Senator Grimes further: Along with a rise in payments, especially for those in greatest need, we believe that the Federal Government will have to take a greater responsibility in providing for the additional needs of people whose income cannot cover their necessary expenses, particularly those dependent on government. There we have the views of Labor State Ministers and those of a Labor senator when he was, conveniently, in opposition. They had no doubt that responsibility for emergency relief rested with the Commonwealth. Of course, they may have forgotten that the Commonwealth has made a contribution to emergency relief for some years. It makes a direct contribution now to some of the great non-government agencies. I recall that some years ago the Commonwealth took over responsibility for paying the pension and supporting payments for the first six months following family breakdown. By so doing, it relieved State treasuries of expenses that they had borne previously. But at that time, understanding that the States had needs in the emergency area, the Commonwealth sought no adjustment of payments between the States on the understanding that moneys so released would go to continuing emergency care. What do we find today? The Commonwealth is unwilling to meet the bill and the States are unwilling to continue to pay what they have paid. We know what Senator Grimes's view was in opposition. Whether he was right or wrong, we are interested in whether he will honour his promises now that he is in government. It is very clear that the poor in my State in desperate circumstances, without food, shelter and accommodation, have now nowhere to turn. The voluntary agencies to which many of us give donations-many people in my State support them very generously-are simply running out of the capacity to respond. What are people to do? They go to the Department of Youth and Community Services and they are told that it is no longer the policy of the Labor Government in New South Wales to meet the emergency needs of the residents of that State. I would be interested, when Labor senators respond in this debate, to learn whether, in the light of this crisis, they contend that the Federal Government should meet the need. There is a very important argument to be resolved between the two levels of government, but while it is being resolved there is no merit, no justification and no equity in the poor being left to bear the brunt of the situation. I want to know what honourable members opposite will say in this debate about the extra State charges-the rental charges, the electricity, the financial mismanagement and the transport charges-to which my colleague will refer later. I want to know what they want to see done about those things that are adding to the burden which the poor have to bear. I am amazed and upset that two Labor governments purporting to be champions of the poor are themselves the cause of this suffering and this crisis in my State of New South Wales. The people of New South Wales are asking: What is going on? Just how sincere is the commitment of these Labor governments to the very poorest in the community? I would acknowledge immediately that this Government has in certain areas increased welfare payments and welfare benefits, and I applaud it for that. I hope that it is not going to trot those increases out as some justification for the crisis we have, because they have no bearing upon the crisis. The extra payments in the income security area will be welcomed by those who receive them. Some of that money will go to pay the increased State charges, to the New South Wales Government. What we are on about at the moment is the public crisis in my State for the needy who have no government sources of emergency benefits remaining to them. We know what Senator Grimes's promise was. We know what his view was when he was the Opposition spokesman. When we Liberals were in government his view was that the responsibility rested in Canberra. We should be interested to know why it is that he may take a different view now that he has ceased to be a member of the Opposition and has become a Minister of the Crown. The Labor Government of my State of New South Wales can take no pride at all in what has happened. As usual, when we read the words and past promises of the Premier of my State and look at what has happened, we get a picture of deceit. In 1982 the Premier of my State, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Wran, said: One thing the Government is not going to do-whether it's a time of financial stringency or not-we're not going to hurt the poorest people in the community. That is a promise which Mr Wran found it possible to make in 1982. I refer honourable senators to a more extensive interview quoted by the Sydney Moring Herald on 1 March of that year in which he set out the ways in which his Government was going to preserve the rights of the disadvantaged. I repeat his words: One thing the Government is not going to do . . . we're not going to hurt the poorest people in the community. Yet, only three years later, the Wran Labor Government has slashed emergency relief, causing some of the poor to do without food and aggravating their problems in even being able to take advantage of health services and to get shelter, and depriving others of clothing and other assistance. Senator Puplick —Shameful. Senator PETER BAUME —It is shameful, as my colleague Senator Puplick says. What the Opposition is looking for, whether or not the difference of principle between governments is resolved, is some action-now, today-to relieve the situation in New South Wales. He wants some action now to help the people in need. As I said, the battling between macho Ministers is no excuse. Poverty exists and runs deep in my State, and the need for emergency relief has been there for years and will continue to be there for years to come. It is clear that this need is not being met. It is not being met because money which was previously available to help the poor and needy has been withdrawn from them. That is what has brought on the crisis. It is not just a question of more money. Let no-one paint the issue in those kinds of terms. It is a question of trying to maintain the level of emergency relief which was there previously. Senator Mason —More money in the right place. Senator PETER BAUME —More money in the right place. If there is an issue between governments, let them resolve it off stage, without making the clients the victims of their fight. What is needed today is that the whole high noon atmosphere, the whole high noon confrontation between macho Ministers-Labor Minister in New South Wales and Labor Minister in Canberra-be ended. We want relief now. We want the Smith Family to be able to help people who need help. We want the soup kitchens and those who are giving their help to be able to give it and not turn people away. We understand that community development and getting to the causes of poverty are an important part of a long term solution. But in the short term a crisis in New South Wales this week and last week was brought on by governments. Of course, we know that no Minister in the State Labor Government and no Minister in the Federal Labor Government will have to call upon these emergency services, insulated as they are behind their $80,000 salaries. They can afford to undertake their battles. They can afford to fight these arguments of constitutional arrangements. They can afford to determine who is and who is not responsible. They can afford to use the poor as hostages in this fight. They are quite secure. But we cannot afford so to do. We cannot afford to stand by. I do not determine how the argument should be resolved. I do not want to enter that fight. I do not want to say that the State is right or the Commonwealth is right. All I demand, on behalf of my State and on behalf of the poor, is that they sort it out, and that they sort it out now. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.33) —The Government acknowledges that, for a change, the Opposition has raised a matter of real public importance, namely, the wellbeing of our poorest Australians. But I reject the accusation by Senator Peter Baume of failure to provide adequate emergency relief by this Government. Whatever is provided, of course, it will never be enough. There will always be the need for more. But how can Senator Peter Baume say it is inadequate when his Party promised only half the amount that Labor has proposed and has delivered? Of course, he carefully made sure that he did not come down on the side of one government or the other. That would have spoilt his argument. He refused to deal with the principle. He said that the matter needs fixing, but he came up with no solution whatsoever. He knows it would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth to do one thing in New South Wales and not in other States. It would probably be unconstitutional, anyway. I emphasise too, that there is not a confrontation between Ministers. Senator Grimes, as Minister for Community Services, has been publicly very gentle with New South Wales. I emphasise that in no way did Senator Peter Baume commit himself to saying whether Senator Grimes was right or wrong. He would not say whether the State or the Commonwealth was right. He, of course, did not want to enter the argument. Many things about the matter of public importance that has been raised by the Opposition amaze me. The first is its timing. Why does Senator Peter Baume select the first sitting day after the responsible Minister, Senator Grimes, has left for overseas on government business? The issue has been around for some time. It has not suddenly arisen today. Yet the Opposition waits until the Minister is away. It is quite strange that it should do that. Perhaps it is because the matter finally got a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday and in an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Mainly, I suggest, it is because Senator Peter Baume did not want to hear Senator Don Grimes's calm and reasoned reply. I think it was particularly inappropriate to leave it until today when the matter began on 1 October and was known to be coming up some time before that. I am also amazed at the Opposition's cheek in raising this matter. The Opposition has never been much concerned in the past about poverty. Its interest in poverty and the people hit hard by disasters and chronic difficulties is very recent. It would seem to have begun only when it looked at the weekend's papers and today's papers. For the last two years, the Opposition has wept tears day after day about the plight of the upmarket pensioner. The only so-called poor people it has worried about are the property owners and trust investors who had arranged things so as to get their hands on some supplementary pocket money from the Government namely, pensions which had been intended only for those who could not otherwise provide for themselves. We had the Opposition's tears for the people who had their own cakes and the Government icing, and none for the unemployed, the single pensioner and their children who faced bare cupboards. In government, Liberal and National Party members were no better. (Quorum formed) My words were obviously stirring the Opposition, because I was saying that in government the Liberal-National Party members were no better than they are in opposition. Their freezing of the unemployment benefit and allowances for children and single parents was callous and disgraceful. It was their actions in holding down those payments far below the poverty line that began the emergency relief explosion which is concerning all of us. They knew what they were doing to punish poor people for their poverty, but they did not care. They ignored all the evidence of the need to provide more, and of the consequences of their ruthless policies in the Fraser years. Only in the 1977 election campaign did they attach enough importance to emergency relief to promise half a million dollars, a promise it took them another two or three years to deliver. It was not at any time a matter of public importance for the opportunist present Opposition. It only becomes important if it thinks it can make a political quid out of it following a newspaper story. The Senate will remember the panic in 1983 in the last days before the Fraser Government was wiped out, when there was a paper snowstorm flurry of promises. Senator Chaney, a great contributor to the volume of panic promises, guaranteed $2m for emergency relief. It was quite blatant. There was a longstanding neglect of the poor, but there was a sudden realisation that the poor might have votes. That $2m concerned clinging to power, not alleviating poverty. I have some contempt for the Opposition in bringing up as a matter of public importance the question of emergency relief. However, as it has chosen to bring the matter up, senators opposite may as well actually learn something about it. Extra help for the poor, apart from the fixed statutory entitlements to defined pensions and benefits, has primarily come from State welfare departments and voluntary agencies. The Commonwealth has come into the field much more recently-as I said, only five or six years ago-and has come in by assisting voluntary agencies to get cash or other in-kind grants out to clients, not by grants to State departments but through voluntary non-government agencies. It is not a matter of calling on the Commonwealth to take up again some long existing responsibility. The policy of the Commonwealth is to help the voluntary agencies do their job. We give $6m a year, more than double the amount that the Fraser Government promised, to voluntary agencies and charitable groups. Disbursement is a matter for judgment by committees in each State consisting of representatives from the Department of Community Services for the Commonwealth, State welfare or community services departments and State and Territory Councils of Social Service. Recommendations then go to the Minister, Senator Grimes, for approval. Most of the traditional agencies, except St Vincent de Paul which declined to work within our reporting guidelines, receive and disburse this relief, which is in addition to their own resources and which was always meant as an addition. Other agencies, apart from the Salvation Army and the Smith Family, include local benevolent organisations, some Aboriginal aid organisations and federations of ethnic groups-in short, where people in trouble would normally go for help. They do not have enough resources and there never will be enough resources. It is not the sort of enterprise that will show a surplus at the end of the year, but it does mean that voluntary groups which were in danger of closing-in one case for the first time in a century-can now continue to help distressed families through times of crisis. That is what emergency relief is-a crisis payment, whether that crisis is a rent bill, a power bill or a fine which can mean the difference between a family staying together or not staying together. Mostly the payments are for a circumstance which most of the complacent Opposition senators could not even comprehend. Money may be stolen, a natural disaster can wreck a home or sudden retrenchments can find a family without the next rent or electricity payment. People can travel in search of work and find there is none and find that they have spent their last dollars on buying petrol to get there. People who are hit by these disasters are traditionally the clients of State governments and voluntary agencies. The officers of the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services are extremely concerned about these clients whom they are now being required to turn away as a result of this unfortunate policy by the New South Wales Government. Because New South Wales has done more than most other States in the past, the absence of its funds will be all the more significant. The people on the Department of Youth and Community Services counters in New South Wales-and there is a very extensive network in that State-often know the families. Those officers know that a small payment can often prevent a family from being thrown out of their house because of overdue rent which has been caused by an unexpected crisis or illness. They know that unless they can keep families together, the falling apart could result in a totally inappropriate shelter or institutional solution. There is a good deal of evidence that these New South Wales public servants are appalled by the problem in New South Wales at present. Mr Walker has suggested that his Government could be up for $500m or $600m a year. This is preposterous. No-one expects that there is an indefinite amount in any public purse for these disaster and emergency situations. We have simply asked that State governments hold to their present spending levels. The Commonwealth is holding to its emergency relief payments and at the same time is increasing the social security payments to the most vulnerable of all welfare clients-the unemployed, the single parents, the private renters and to their children. Money is being directed where the need is greatest. New South Wales has asked us to increase pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The hundreds of millions of dollars that this would take is hundreds of millions of dollars that this Government should be spending, and it will reach that target. However, in terms of this week's problems, it should be emphasised that it would go in the main-around 99 per cent of it-to families not actually in crisis. It would not be directed to the users of emergency relief and there would still be a need for a system of emergency relief. It may come as a surprise to Senator Peter Baume that only 1.1 per cent of pensioners and beneficiaries in New South Wales receive emergency relief. Overwhelmingly they are not aged pensioners. The Government believes that emergency relief should be targeted at the people with sudden problems and the people most at risk. Even if the value of social security payments were to rise by $5 or $10 a week-at huge expense and not the sort of expense the Opposition would suggest should be outlaid-this would not lessen the demand for emergency relief which is associated with inadequate savings to meet large bills, particularly after meeting rent commitments. The survey of Department of Youth and Community Services cash relief recipients in New South Wales found that electricity bills-that is, New South Wales Government electricity bills-were the main purpose of relief for 27.4 per cent of its clients and for 37.8 per cent of its expenditure. This means that about $3.1m of the New South Wales 1984-85 expenditure could have gone to pay Electricity Commission of New South Wales bills. The same survey found that 49 per cent of its clients rented privately, 21 per cent rented from the Housing Commission, 4 per cent lived in a refuge or were homeless and 3 per cent lived in caravans. I should mention here that New South Wales currently spends the least per capita of any State on public housing. This is significant when it is realised that half of the private rental applicants for emergency relief spent more than 50 per cent of the income on rent. That is a statistic that the Opposition ought to take note of in raising this matter. A more startling figure is that the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services underspent its emergency relief appropriation by $1.28m last year. We do have sympathy with State governments which cannot meet all the demands of applicants, as we have sympathy when this happens to the Salvation Army, for example. However, we have less sympathy for this action when we learn that New South Wales inflated last year's expenditure of $11m to this projected figure of $500m or $600m when not even all of that $11m was spent last year. It is well known that most States would like to see the Commonwealth write cheques for any program that they decide is too difficult or expensive. This cannot be done responsibly and nor is it responsible for States to abdicate suddenly their responsibility to poor and desperate people in their own States. Most States recognise that. The Commonwealth believes that it should accept responsibility for the level of income support. The greatest contribution we have made to that is the extraordinary improvement in the employment situation. When this Government was voted in, there were 633,000 people on unemployment benefit. Last week there were 530,000 people on unemployment benefit. We have reduced the ranks of those unemployed by more than 100,000 through our economic policies and we have reduced their misery and need for welfare and, more than the Opposition could ever say, we have given them hope. As well as that, we have increased payments to the children of pensioners and beneficiaries and we have increased pensions above indexation, increased supplementary rent allowance and we are in the process of extending it to beneficiaries for the first time. In times of economic difficulty we have spent consistently on the people with the greatest needs. The Opposition continually wants us to cut our Budget but at the same time it claims our spending in specific areas is inadequate. Of course, since it wants to abolish the assets test at the same time, it is hardly consistent; but then we have come not to expect consistency from the Opposition. As far as the specific problem in New South Wales is concerned, Commonwealth officials are discussing with New South Wales officials at the moment some way in which the present state of affairs in New South Wales can be resolved. It is not in any government's interest to subject people already under stress to a refusal by the relevant government department to give help. The Commonwealth is not in the position of giving discretionary cash grants over its counters in the form of emergency relief. It gives statutory entitlements only. Senator Peter Baume knows that. Realistically, no other way exists than for New South Wales to continue the level of support to its citizens which enables them to function in society. Realistically, if a State decides that it does not want to continue to spend in an area it cannot expect the Commonwealth to send down that amount by the next post. The Commonwealth does not write those sorts of cheques for State government departments. As I have said, it is not appropriate for the Commonwealth to provide specific assistance for one State and not do it for the others. We do not believe that States can abandon financial help for poor people. The Commonwealth, under this Government, has increased social security payments. It has more than doubled emergency relief payments. It has not stopped any program. It has certainly not pulled the rug from under the poor. Senator Grimes has asked New South Wales to defer its withdrawal of this assistance, at least until May, when certain Federal Budget measures take effect. It is very regrettable that New South Wales has chosen to take this unilateral action. By continuing discussions we hope that the matter will be resolved soon. Emergency relief is an important matter. I still hope that New South Wales will agree to a moratorium on its cutbacks. It gives me no pleasure that a Labor Government in New South Wales has so far rejected that request. There are problems that ought to be sorted out. The Opposition acknowledges that it would not come down with any firm position as to whether it was the Commonwealth or the State that was responsible. One needs to look at why the demand per capita varies so much from State to State and why no other State has announced its withdrawal from this field though, as is known, State Ministers collectively expressed such an intent earlier this year. It re-emphasise that in 1979-80, under the Fraser Government, $0.5m was provided by the Commonwealth in this area. In the current year the Labor Government is providing $6m, of which $2.375m is to be spent in New South Wales. I do not particularly like the connotation involved in the use of charities for this distribution, but it is not appropriate to use the Department of Social Security for these sorts of ad hoc payments. Senator Peter Baume did nothing to suggest an alternative. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.52) —Those of us who live in New South Wales, especially in Sydney, have to be pretty long suffering. Sydney is accused of being the crime capital of Australia, of having the nation's worst traffic, the sharpest businessmen and some other even less charitable items. If there is something that is really rotten in New South Wales it is that thing which is about as ugly and as sordid as one can get; that is, actual poverty, actual deprivation, even of the basic necessities such as food and shelter. This is increasingly the lot of hundreds of thousands of people, especially those least able to look after themselves, such as children, the aged, the young unemployed and poor families. That is what this debate ought to be about. Indeed, it is what it is about. I am not very happy at all about Senator Coates's response to the debate on behalf of the Government. He is not a senator for New South Wales. I suppose these people are not his responsibility. It is okay for him to sit there and say that the Government cannot do anything about the problem and that it would cost the New South Wales Government $400m to $500m to cope with this situation. Senator Coates —I did not say that. Senator MASON —The honourable senator said $500m to $600m. Senator Coates —No, that is what New South Wales is saying. Senator MASON —That is what New South Wales is saying; fair enough. That is the point. Senator Coates is looking at one side of the coin and I am looking at the other. In other words, that is as convenient a quantification as any of the state of the problem. Surely that is of some significance. We are saying quite calmly in this Parliament that there is disproportionate poverty and need in the biggest city of this country which would cost $500m to $600m a year to cope with and we are not going to do anything about it. That is an intolerable and a completely inhuman situation. We are now starting to see the effects of the decision by the New South Wales Government to discontinue emergency cash funding of the poor as from the 1st of this month. Senator Peter Baume covered the points made by the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday about the huge queues that are now turning up at relief centres in Sydney, the fact that the Hare Krishna centre ran out of food for the first time in five years because the queues were so big and the fact that the Smith Family had to close two hours early last week on two days for the same reason. The General Secretary of the Smith Family, Mr Bob Turner, said: The situation is now desperate and it will get worse, much worse. That is not a source of consolation to any of us. As a senator for New South Wales, one of my major worries for some time has been the appalling economic inequities in New South Wales, especially in Sydney and particularly in the western suburbs of Sydney. It is, I suppose, one of the great disadvantages of big cities that they point up and exacerbate social and economic inequities. One would have thought that our governments would give some due thought to this phenomenon and do what they can to see that hundreds of thousands of people now in deep economic trouble have their problems addressed, but they do not do this. As Senator Peter Baume has indicated, this is an intractable, long-standing problem. It is worth saying-I think that Senator Coates has said it-that the problems of the poor in New South Wales are not simply the responsibility of the Hawke Government; they go back much earlier than the present Labor Government. There can be no doubt that the Liberal and National parties are very much to blame for the present situation, just as much as the current Government. Senator Peter Baume pointed out that the immediate problem is the withdrawal of emergency funding from 1 October. I will talk more about that later. Really that is only the tip of the iceberg. Poverty goes very deep and it is very widespread in Sydney. First of all, I would like to look at some broad background to that because these matters need to be faced squarely. Every day things happen to tens of thousands of people in Sydney which ought to be considered incredible, intolerable and totally unjustifiable in any decent society. Yet we tolerate them and even, to some extent, try to justify them. I am speaking about the thousands of people who every night sleep in parks, under bridges and in shop doorways because they have no roof over their head. I am speaking of the thousands more who rely for a place to sleep and for basic food on the hard pressed services of the welfare organisations which, as the Sydney Morning Herald report indicated, are in a state of desperation. There are hundreds of thousands more who live in the worst of inadequate accommodation, many of them in caravan parks, because they cannot afford to pay rent for even the most minimal accommodation. Rents in Sydney are increasing sharply. From time to time, people, often old people, die in fires, They live in ramshackle fire traps in parts of Sydney because that is the only accommodation which many aged pensioners and unemployed people can afford. Many times over the years I have tried to get the Federal Government to accept the inequity involved in its actions. I have especially made mention of the rent subsidy for pensioners, which is the same amount anywhere in Australia. The subsidy does not take into account the fact that rents for even minimal accommodation are two and three times higher in Sydney than in some other parts of Australia. I have sought to have that allowance indexed to the average rentals in major centres of population, but I have not got anywhere because I am told that the Constitution says that all Australians must be treated equally. Great! I would have thought that there was no equal treatment when a pensioner in Sydney was expected to pay a far higher proportion of his welfare payment in rent than a pensioner in Hobart. But somehow the bureaucracy has convinced itself that it does not need to see it that way round. That sort of thing is a purblindness which is not justified under any circumstances. I have visited beehive centres and other places where elderly people are. If only the people in this chamber could understand the enormous suffering, hardship and early deaths which result from that one thing alone in Sydney, they might feel differently about the matter. A Sydney pensioner, as a result of having to pay appallingly higher rents, even for just a small room with shared facilities, has far less money on which to survive-to buy food and other things which are necessary to maintain even an unhealthy lifestyle. That is the fate of many pensioners in Sydney. Having served this country all their lives until they receive a pension, they are expected to eke out the rest of their lives in conditions of malnutrition, where they simply cannot afford to buy decent meat, fruit, milk and so on to the extent that experts in geriatrics tell us that it is physiologically necessary for them. We wish that fate upon them because of our calm acceptance of the situation. One of the major outlets in Sydney for pet food is as protein food for pensioners. People have said that the sale of certain brands of pet food in Sydney is as high as 60 per cent because it is the only protein which pensioners can afford. We might have accepted this situation if what I am quoting from now was a Dickens novel, but this is Australia in 1985. One of the ironies of the present situation in New South Wales is that the influence of government overall, for one reason or another, is not to improve conditions in those areas in which the poor live but to organise things so that the poor and their families become even more disadvantaged. Surely that is a matter of public importance. I am thinking again, of course, of the western suburbs of Sydney where the days are starting to heat up and will get hotter into the summer. I am thinking especially of the wretched situation in which school children are expected to do their work in so-called demountable classrooms. These aluminium boxes were originally designed in the United States of America where, I am informed, it is considered that they should be used only if provided with proper heating in winter and air conditioning in summer. They were designed to have those things automatically with them, otherwise they are useless and unfit for human beings to be in. But that was never accepted in New South Wales. Children there are expected to learn in freezing conditions in winter and appallingly hot ones in summer. As a result, they are being exposed to a very real and permanent disadvantage, which no doubt will affect them all their lives and which here again we accept with complacency. These children of the poor in the outer suburbs of Sydney, who might have the effrontery to qualify themselves for tertiary education and who can somehow get the money together, will not find a university west of Parramatta, where nearly half of Sydney's population now lives. Of the three universities in the inner suburbs of Sydney, the only one with any reasonable access to those outer suburbs is Macquarie University at Ryde. The outer suburbs are disadvantaged in almost every conceivable way-parks, hospitals, baby health centres, open space, public transport, to name a few. That situation drags on. Indeed, as time goes on, it gets worse. Even in today's Press social workers in the western area of Sydney are pressing the urgent need for new suburbs, or at least the organisation of suburbs fit for people to live in because the ones that are now there are not fit for people to live in. The New South Wales public hospital system is still in a state of siege. The New South Wales Health Department has cut back on this year's allocations to most public hospitals by hundreds of thousands of dollars each because of decreased attendances over the past year. Obviously, there has been inadequate consultation with the hospitals concerned, or the Department would have realised that, in the main, the decreased attendances were due to the doctors' strike, and not to any dramatic improvement in the health of the citizens of New South Wales. This somehow might have made one feel that one could get by with less money, but that is not the case. The Australian Democrats believe that the basic problem in this current emergency in New South Wales lies not with the State government, even though it is at fault-and I shall go into that matter briefly in a moment-but with the Federal Government which has not provided adequate social security payments, especially for children, people renting accommodation and the unemployed, and which does not recognise the special problems of Sydney with its higher rents, higher transport costs and higher costs in almost every area. These people who are unemployed, renting accommodation, aged, are most often forced to swallow their pride and go out and beg for a small amount of money to enable them to make ends meet. The New South Wales Government, in the Democrats' opinion, has made three basic mistakes in eliminating this emergency relief funding. First, it left far too short a time between announcing the move and the time of its inception, which was 1 October. This allowed very little time for welfare organisations to get their act together in such a way that they could cope where the Government obviously refused to do so. Those organisations are doing their best to cope, but no real opportunity was given to them to do it. Senator Walters —They haven't got the money anyway. Senator MASON —They haven't got the money anyway, but at least if they had a bit of warning they could have tried. They have not been given that opportunity by the New South Wales Government. Secondly, the New South Wales Government did not say, when announcing the move, that this was a Federal responsibility. Instead, there were statements that the Federal Government had done such a good job with increasing social security payments that the emergency relief fund was no longer necessary. That was a patently untrue, cynical and even immoral point of view. It was a piece of political justification which, in other circumstances, we might have found acceptable, but in this circumstance of such manifest and huge need it comes out looking very shabby indeed. More and more people in New South Wales are forced to seek emergency help every day because their social security allowance is not adequate. That should be abundantly clear to all of us. The third mistake made by the New South Wales Government was to move unilaterally instead of in consultation with the other States. If there were to be some sort of reorganisation, if it had moved perhaps in consultation with other State governments, it would have had the support of those governments and this matter would have been brought to this place and other places and to the attention of the media throughout the country not just as a New South Wales problem but as a national problem. No doubt it will become a national problem because, New South Wales having taken this step, there will be a strong temptation now on the part of other States to consider similar action when they want to save some money. If they could have done these things together instead of acting like Brown's cows, the situation would have been much better. The Australian Council of Social Service and the New South Wales Council of Social Service both believe that the State governments should not have to provide emergency relief funds to cover up for the inadequacies of the Federal Government's social security system. This is a Federal Government responsibility and it must be seen as such. The provision of these funds only makes the social security system more complex. It is also insidious in its institutionalisation of begging as a legitimate form of obtaining emergency welfare payments. That system strips people of their dignity completely when they are feeling most vulnerable. To make them beg for something for which they ought to have an automatic right is a bizarre, cruel twist to our social organisations. I spoke today to the Australian Council of Social Service and asked whether it had any suggestions about what could be done to improve the situation in New South Wales immediately. The Council felt that if three steps were taken now the situation would be very much improved. I commend these to the Government. The three steps it suggested were, first, that the New South Wales Government continue to provide emergency relief funding for six months. As Senator Coates said, this Government has asked the New South Wales Government to reconsider its decision. I add my plea to that: Let the matter be restored, even at some financial disadvantage to the State, for another six months. Secondly, the Federal Government should either accelerate the introduction of the pension increases proposed in the last Budget-that could be done; it is not an impossible thing to happen, and I commend it to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button)-or provide special extra funding such as a special children's pension allocation at Christmas, or both. Thirdly, State Government instrumentalities should review their billing methods, especially for fuel such as electricity and gas, considering among other things more favourable rates for those in greatest need. If the present situation continues as it is now, we will be moving towards a Dickensian society of poorhouses, workhouses, and a social system which condones starving, ragged children begging in the streets. It has not come to that yet-not quite-but the writing is on the wall for us. We in this Parliament have got to do something practical about this problem, and the sooner the better. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(4.07) —The Senate is considering a matter of public importance put to it by my colleague Senator Peter Baume, namely: The failure of the Federal Government, in common with the New South Wales Labor Government, to provide adequate emergency relief for the poor. For a Party that likes to trumpet its concern about the poor and the needy, the Australian Labor Party's record and the record of its Federal and State Labor administrations relative to the poor of New South Wales is a shabby and shameful saga of neglect and betrayal. When this matter was raised by Senator Peter Baume it was responded to by Senator Coates. Senator Coates's speech consisted of two essential elements. In the first instance, he said how poor was the welfare record of the State of New South Wales. He rightfully criticised and bucketed the Wran Administration for spending less per capita on public housing than any other State in the Commonwealth, and for having increased its electricity charges in such a way that 37 per cent of total expenditure by people receiving emergency relief goes to pay electricity charges and 27 per cent of persons in receipt of that emergency relief have as the largest item of expenditure in their disposable income the paying of charges imposed upon them by the New South Wales Government. On the subject of electricity charges, I remind the Senate that, since the Wran Government came into power, from 1976 until December 1983 it had managed to increase electricity charges by 12.9 per cent greater than the rate of inflation; that in October 1982 it put up the electricity charges to pensioners by 38 per cent; and that in October 1983 it put up electricity charges to pensioners by an additional 57 per cent. This was largely as a result of its incompetence, in its management of the electricity supply, in its handling of industrial relations, and in providing the people of New South Wales with the elementary services for which they are paying the highest rates and taxes of any State in the Commonwealth. The other leg of Senator Coates's argument was that members of the Liberal and National parties and their parties in general had no particular interest, or had only just discovered an interest, in questions of poverty and welfare. A little history would have persuaded Senator Coates, if any fact is capable of persuading him, that in the first decade of this nation's federation, it was the Deakin Government, a Liberal government, which pioneered at a Federal level the whole system of old age pensions. Senator Coates will recall that it was Bill Wentworth, as the Minister for Social Services in the Gorton and McMahon governments, who introduced the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty under Professor Henderson. Senator Coates —Under pressure from us because you were too scared of McMahon losing the election. Senator PUPLICK —Let me tell Senator Coates that I was on Mr Wentworth's staff at the time, and if he thinks he can get away with that sort of nonsensical interjection with somebody who is in a position to know just how wrong he is, he is mistaken. I remind him that in 1967 sheltered employment allowances were introduced by a Liberal government. In 1977 the supporting parent's benefit was extended to supporting fathers. Senator Coates will not get away with saying that there has never been any concern on our part about these problems. He sought to establish where there is a degree of responsibility in this matter. Let me tell him that there is absolute unanimity among Labor spokesmen on this matter. Senator Grimes, on 20 April 1982, put out a Press release which stated: Along with a rise in payments, especially for those in greatest need, we believe that the Federal Government will have to take a greater responsibility in providing for the additional needs of people whose income cannot cover their necessary expenses, particularly those dependent on government. I can understand the extent to which Senator Coates would now wish to back away from and deny the comments of Senator Grimes. I am sure that if we all wait quietly enough for long enough we will hear the cockerel crow three times. In exactly the same way, one can look at the statement made on 16 April 1982 by Mrs Toner in the Victorian Government in response to a question about who she thought had the responsibility for this. An article in the Age newspaper stated: Mrs Toner said one of the Labor Government's main platforms was to get the Federal Government to assume its responsibilities on income security. `The voluntary agencies and the State government are continually having to top up on the deficiencies caused by inadequate Federal benefits,' Mrs Toner said. Mr Walker, the Minister in New South Wales, is in no doubt on this matter. The Sydney Morning Herald of 14 September 1985 reported: The Minister for Youth and Community Services, Mr Walker, said yesterday that the Federal Government had a responsibility for income maintenance which was clearly not being met. `We have been turning thousands of people away for some time who have been seeking emergency aid because we haven't got enough money to help them all. On 2 October 1985, again in the Sydney Morning Herald, talking about the impasse between the Federal and State governments, Mr Walker is reported as saying: Senator Grimes knows full well that this decision by New South Wales was coming. He has been warned by State Governments for more than two years. Senator Grimes has been on notice for more than two years. Senator Coates has come into this place and bleated about a statement, saying: `We asked them not to do anything, to hold off for six months, to make some temporary palliatives so that we could address the matter'. Yet his New South Wales counterpart is saying and has said that for two years his Federal counterpart has been on notice. I will quote again what Mr Walker has said of the situation. He was reported in a newspaper article as saying: All the people who need emergency funds are already recipients of Commonwealth benefits-this simply goes to show that Commonwealth benefits are inadequate. This morning's Sydney Morning Herald carries the headline: `Cash handouts: Wran is right'. The newspaper states: . . . social security is a Federal responsibility. . . . But whatever the objections, they-- talking about welfare groups- should be taken to Canberra. The States should get out of the business of shoring up the social security system. If one looks at the record of the Wran Government in terms of benefits and provision of support for people in need in New South Wales, it is interesting to see that since it has been in office in New South Wales the number of supporting parents who have to rely upon supplementary benefits has increased from 36 per cent of the total number of persons throughout Australia to in excess of 40 per cent. Senator Coates talked about the recovery. Where is the recovery for these people? Where are they in Mr Hawke's thinking while he suns himself in the Caribbean? Where are they in Mr Wran's thinking while he big notes himself around the Great Wall of China? He can always find enough money for another project. There is always enough money in New South Wales to satisfy Mr Wran's obvious edifice complex. The New South Wales Government has imposed upon the people of New South Wales its regime of charges and taxes. Let this stand as an indictment of it: Under the economic administration of the Wran Government taxes and charges in New South Wales-they have to be borne directly or indirectly by the poor of New South Wales as much as by anybody else, if, indeed, not more-have increased by 160 per cent. Between 1976 and 1984 direct taxation per head in New South Wales has risen from $249 to $594-an increase in the vicinity of 140 per cent. Senator Button —What about in Queensland? Senator PUPLICK —Moreover, people living in New South Wales pay 62 per cent more than the people living in Tasmania and 51 per cent more than those living in Queensland, to answer Senator Button's helpful interjection. New South Wales has the dubious distinction of ranking first in Australia on a per capita basis in matters of payroll tax, land tax, gambling revenue, stamp duties, fees, fines, liquor and tobacco franchise fees and petrol taxes. As Senator Coates rightly pointed out, New South Wales ranks last in per capita expenditure on public housing. We have seen the debacle of public housing in New South Wales which resulted in Mr Wran, on 15 August, having to wind up the Land Commission of New South Wales because it was engaged in all sorts of wonderful speculations which did everything except benefit the poor of New South Wales who were supposed to benefit from the policies pursued by the Housing Commission and Landcom. We have seen the amount of public money spent. Senator Coates said: `Perhaps they need $500m'. In the course of just the last couple of months we have seen $50m allocated for a soccer ground to complement the Sydney Cricket Ground. We are to have $1m spent on the building of a permanent pavilion in Centennial Park. We are to have $1 billion committed to the Darling Harbour project when people who are currently in that park area at Darling Harbour live on pet food and sleep on park benches. There is $1 billion allocated for all of the buildings to be put up by Mr Wran as part of his bicentennial obsessions. We are told of the particular significance of the western suburbs. In the Estimates committee hearing I happened to criticise the amount of money being spent on sporting complexes in Mr Brown's electorate of Parramatta. Thirty-one per cent of the total amount of money to be spent on building sports projects is to be spent in Mr Brown's electorate in Parramatta. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will remember that I was chastised by Senator Ryan. You then chastised me for saying something nasty about the Wran Government. I will quote from the Senate Estimates Committee Hansard of 1 October, Senator Ryan said: I would also point out that it is in an area, the western suburbs of Sydney, which has been notoriously underprovided with community services of this kind. I think any person familiar with the limited extent of community facilities in those areas would understand the policy sense in providing a major institution in this area. That major institution is to be a sports stadium. This occurred at exactly the same time as an announcement from Mr Walker. The Sydney Morning Herald reported: The State Government has made savage cuts in money allocated to community aid centres in western Sydney . . . The Western Sydney Community Forum said spending on neighbourhood and community aid centres in the west this year by the Department of Youth and Community Services had been slashed by 10.6 per cent. The cuts meant . . . Blacktown Community Aid, Auburn Community Aid, Blue Mountains Community Aid, Campbelltown Information Centre, Whalan Community Centre and Fairfield Community Aid would lose their funding in the next few months. There is plenty of money for Mr Brown to chuck around at his sports stadiums, for Mr Wran to chuck at his Darling Harbour project and for these grand bicentennial gestures, but there is not a few hundred million dollars around-compared with that amount of money-for the poor and homeless of Sydney, for the people who do not have enough to eat, for those who do not have adequate standards of housing and shelter and for the people who do not have an adequate degree of clothing. It is no use Senator Coates coming into this place and saying that it is all the fault of the New South Wales State Government. That is precisely what he has done. It may be a fault of the nine years of neglect and maladministration by the New South Wales State Government. It may well be that it is primarily responsible, but that does not remove the fact that to a very large extent the Federal Government has abdicated its responsibilities. The best that Senator Grimes could do was to put out a statement on 30 August saying: One of the most pressing needs of the families who seek cash assistance is to pay for State charges such as power bills and rates . . . When he says that he condemns the New South Wales Government, he condemns his own Party and he condemns his own Party Federal President, directly and properly, for their responsibility in this matter. Mr Walker's response is: `It is not our fault'. The bottom line of the whole matter is, whether it be the State Labor Government or the Federal Labor Government, the people who suffer are the constituents whom Senator Peter Baume, Senator Mason and I represent. They are left in a state of poverty and destitution because these State Labor governments once again have betrayed the responsibilities which they have always claimed they hold especially for the poor and underprivileged. Once again as governments they expose themselves for the hypocrites that they are. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(4.21) —I, like Senator Coates, am amazed to hear today two Opposition senators from New South Wales speak to us about the poor. Those two honourable senators, who represent in this Parliament wealth, power and privilege, tell the Australian Labor Party and the Labor Government, which has been elected by people from Sydney's western suburbs, what they should do to help the poor. The reality is that it is we on the Government side, not just while we have been members of Parliament but from the time we have been able to think and act, who have always acted with the underprivileged in mind. One does not have to go back very far-only a couple of short years-to see just how the Liberal Party of Australia operated when in government, to see what its priorities were then and to realise that Senator Coates is right. The Liberal Party has only now discovered poverty as an issue because for seven years when it was in government not only did it do nothing about the poor but also it deliberately created, as a matter of government policy, hundreds of thousands of new unemployed Australians to fight, as it said, inflation. After seven years of fighting inflation by creating more people who could be poor in Australia, by creating more people who could not have enough meat on the table, members of the Liberal Party come into the chamber today and tell the Labor Party that it ought to do something for the poor. Looking back at some of the figures makes fascinating recollections. One realises that the Liberal Party will fail in this exercise because the underprivileged in Australia have a good, long memory. They remember what has happened to them over the last few years. Most of them, who have been caught in generational poverty, remember what has gone on for generations. They remember what honourable senators opposite represent and what we on this side represent. Fortunately for the poor-indeed, fortunately for Australia-we represent some hope. While we do not promise miracles overnight we get the runs on the board because we do things for the poor and we try to make sure that their lot is improved. That is in marked contrast with what the Liberal Party provided. Senator Peter Baume was a member of that Government, and he, along with the rest of the members of that Government, should be damned for his performance. Let us look at that performance. Honourable senators will remember Malcolm Fraser. I know that he never gets a mention any more but I think we ought to be reminded today of his visage. At the National Press Club on 2 December 1975-those heady days-he stated: . . . we will not attempt to reduce the assistance to voluntary welfare agencies. Within a couple of years he was providing $500,000 when a government report had recommended $12m. In the first two years of the Fraser Government organisations faced a doubling of demand for money but got no increase whatsoever. On 21 August 1977-honourable senators will notice that these statements were made prior to elections; they were the times when the Liberal Party really had to act-Mr Fraser also stated-and it is another great quote: We have acted by introducing a family allowance scheme. This has been recognised as the single most important reform in the Australian welfare system since Federation. Let us look at what the Liberal Government did to show its concern for the poor. By 1982 a family with two children found itself $20 a week worse off under this scheme compared with its position in 1976 and a family with four children was doubly worse off. Simply those are facts and figures which cannot be refuted. Mr Fraser's 1975 election speech referring to pensions generally is the real classic. He stated: The real value of pensions will be preserved. There is one pretty simple statistic which gives the lie to that and that is that pensions were 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings when the Labor Party left office in 1975; when the Labor Party regained office pensions were 22 per cent of average weekly earnings. As usual, Liberal promises, particularly when it came to the underprivileged or the poor, were disregarded because they were not in the electorates of the Liberal Party. They were not the people whom the Liberal Party was elected to look after, and abandon them it did, as it did in customary style every time it had the opportunity. The unemployment benefit rate for 18-year-olds again tells a story. For the entire duration of the Fraser Government-seven years-that benefit lost 80 per cent of its value. It was only raised once, despite the Liberal Party's failures with inflation. Despite inflation racing away to figures over 10 and 11 per cent, the Liberal Party managed to raise the benefit for the young unemployed only once. I think we have to look at what happened to the young in order to see our whole social fabric for the future. In the last year of the Fraser Government 186,000 Australians lost their jobs-in one year. That is what the Fraser Government provided for the poor. When the Fraser Government came to office in July 1975, 170,000 were unemployed; seven years later, in July 1982, the number had gone up to 405,000. Let us look at the unemployment benefit, additional payments and family allowances that were provided under the Fraser Government and compare them with what the Hawke Government has done in the 2 1/2 short years it has had the privilege of governing Australia. We must look at what we would have had to increase payments by in March 1983 to bring them into line with what they were in December 1975. The single adult unemployment benefit would have had to be increased by 7 1/2 per cent, but for 16 and 17-year-olds it would have had to be increased by 63 1/2 per cent. That is how much the unemployment benefit would have had to be increased in order to bring it into line with the 1975 level. In 1983 additional pension benefits were 28 per cent behind what they had been in December 1985. The great performance of the Fraser Government was to see mothers and guardians allowances-again it is a poverty trap; something to which we can all look to see what happens to the underprivileged under Liberal governments-104 per cent behind what they had been in December 1975 when the Liberals took office. Rent assistance was down by 2 per cent. For the first child family allowances-and Malcolm Fraser referred to family allowances as the single greatest reform of welfare since Federation-needed to be increased by 413 per cent in 1983 to bring them into line; for the second child 266 per cent, for the third child 119 per cent and for the fourth child 94 per cent. That is what the Fraser Government delivered to the poor in Australia; it delivered them nothing. It deliberately created more people who could be under the poverty line set by Henderson so that it could-I use the Liberal Party's words-fight inflation. The only result it got was misery. It certainly did not cure anything as far as inflation was concerned. As usual, it was inflation which was biting at the poor, the very people whom the Liberal Party was creating more of in the name of fighting inflation. We wonder what Liberal senators who talk today about the negligence of this Government in respect of the poor were saying from 1975 to 1982. They certainly said nothing in this chamber. There are no reports of their saying anything in caucus rooms or party committee rooms. The Liberal Party simply disregarded the poor as it has done since Federation and as it will continue to do. If one compares those figures with what has happened in the few short years of the Labor Government one starts to get some idea of the Labor Party's real commitment to the poor and underprivileged. If it would have taken an increase of 413 per cent in family allowances for the first child, it now takes an increase of 15 per cent to get them back to what they were in December 1975. The Labor Government has been on the move with all payments to social security beneficiaries. It has been making sure that something is being done to improve the miserable lot left to them by the Fraser Government. When one looks at tax reform one can see that what we have done over recent weeks and what has been announced in recent days has been an attempt to get to the heart of poverty traps to make sure that we do something for the underprivileged. The tax threshold has been increased from $4,595 to $5,100. Marginal tax rates have been reduced. From September 1986 people earning $10,000 will be paying 27 per cent less tax then they were paying in 1984. People in receipt of the average income of $17,500 will have received a 17 per cent decrease in the amount of tax payable since early 1984. Again, the Labor Party has shown its commitment. It has made the announcements and it has done the deeds. If one looks at poverty traps, the exact things that were attacked by this Government- Senator Peter Baume —Tell us about the starving in Sydney. Senator RICHARDSON —I ask Senator Peter Baume what he did about people starving while he was in government. The answer is nothing. The removal of the separate income test in respect of rent assistance for pensioners eliminates poverty traps facing about 700,000 pensioners and beneficiaries who rent privately. The income for each child that is allowable before a pension is reduced has been increased from $6 to $12 a week. This is another major step forward, especially for sole parent pensioners. Another poverty trap that the Labor Government has attacked is the amount of allowable income which could be earned before the level of pension was reduced. That amount has gone from $30 to $40, an increase of $10 a week for single pensioners, and from $50 to $70, an increase of $20 a week for couples. The elimination of poverty traps was seen by the Government as crucial. These measures go a long way towards reducing them. They might not eliminate poverty completely, but at least they go part of the way. I should point out that 450,000 pensioners will receive an increase of $5 as a result of the new announcements and 300,000 pensioners will get an increase of $15. We have heard a lot today about public housing, especially from Senator Puplick. Again I think we ought to compare what happened in the area of public housing during the years of the Fraser Government with what has happened under the Hawke Government. As usual, the comparisons with the Fraser Government are odious. In the last year of office the Liberal Party spent $264m on public housing. In 1985-86, under the Hawke Government, a total of $654 will be spent in this area. This is almost three times as much as was spent in the last full year of the Liberal Government, in spite of the fact that this Government has got inflation down to levels of 5 per cent and 6 per cent. In New South Wales, in respect of which so much criticism has been made today, $83m was spent in 1981-82 under the Fraser Government, In 1985-86 the amount has been increased to $212m. That is the sort of figure that Senator Puplick and Senator Baume attempt to ignore when they speak here today on their newly discovered topic of poverty. In percentage terms there has been a total increase of 160 per cent over what was spent in 1982-83. In New South Wales the increase is 163 per cent. There has been a total percentage increase of 250 per cent over what was spent in 1981-82. The increase in respect of New South Wales is 255 per cent. Of course, we have heard nothing-and we will hear nothing-from the Liberal Party about this because its own record in this area was abysmal. That is not to overlook the point that there is a problem today in New South Wales and the other States. It is not to pretend that there are not people queuing up in food queues. Unlike the situation when the Liberal Party was in government, this is not a problem that this Government wants to run away from. Rather, it is something that we want to do something about. The reality is that Premier Wran and his Minister Frank Walker are acutely aware of the difficulty and are, even as we speak, trying to fathom out a way of getting around this problem. We are really talking about emergency aid of $11m. There is a disagreement between governments. Negotiations are continuing in an effort to get around that problem. It is my hope that we will manage to do something about it very quickly. However, we should not ignore the fact that we spend $15 billion on social security measures helping two million people. That is a marked improvement on the situation two and a half years ago. It is my hope that the improvement will continue. I am sure that the wrangle between the two governments will be settled properly and we will see a reduction in those queues. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.35) —The Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The failure of the Federal Labor Government, in common with the New South Wales Labor Government, to provide adequate emergency relief for the poor. I quote those words because no speaker from the Australian Labor Party has stuck to them. Rather, they have used their time to outline what the Labor Government has done for people on social security payments. They talked about the taxation that pensioners will now not have to pay. But these are not the people who are the subject of the matter before the Senate. We are talking about people in real need. We are talking about soup kitchens which are being closed in New South Wales for the first time since the Depression-not from lack of need but because of lack of finance. The whole crux of this debate is not who gives what to whom or whose responsibility it is to give emergency relief to the Australian poor but the fact that there are people in New South Wales who are hungry, who do not have shelter, who are sick and who are not getting proper health care. What is it all about? On 1 October the New South Wales Government stopped paying emergency relief to single and married couples except in cases where children were at risk and the family was in immediate danger of breakdown. That is what it is all about. It is not about whether pensioners are going to pay tax. It is not about whether pensioners are going to get an additional $2 rise. It is about the very poor, the people who have to attend soup kitchens in New South Wales. Senator Peter Baume —The withdrawal of a benefit that was there-of help. Senator WALTERS —We are talking about the withdrawal of what Mr Wran used to give people in crisis and in need of emergency help. Senator Grimes, the Minister for Community Services, was a member of the Social Welfare Committee which, under my chairmanship, produced a report entitled `Homeless Youth'. We went around to all the shelters and he knows darn well that the young people we saw do not have the ability to seek the legal benefits to which they are entitled. He knows the extent to which they use soup kitchens in New South Wales. Yet, he is saying: `It is not our fault. It is not our responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Wran Government.' Of course, the Wran Government is saying: `It is not our fault. The people will have to starve; the people will have to go without. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government'. Let us have a look at what Senator Grimes said back in 1982 when there was a concern by some of the welfare organisations that were not getting enough emergency relief. It was not the concern that they have today that they do not have the funds, that Wran is closing the soup kitchens, but that they did not have enough. As Senator Coates has said, there is never enough. However, what Senator Coates ignored and did not say today was that there is a need for some funds. He did not tell us what is happening in New South Wales at the moment. Senator Grimes said: The fact that their begging-- this is the people in need- is not in the streets but in the privacy of the voluntary welfare agencies means that they are invisible, but no less in distress. He went on to say: It has now become a supplement for the basic needs of far too many Australians . . . It demeans the people who have to plead for food vouchers or money to pay the rent. So what has he done? He has said that it is not our problem. In 1982 Senator Grimes also said: The Federal Government must take responsibility for its dependants who cannot survive on the benefits they are paid. This means that payments should be raised to a reasonable level so people do not have to go without. That is what Senator Grimes said when he was in opposition. He said that they must be paid at a reasonable level so that they do not have to go without. What did Wran say? We have wonderful quotes by members of the Labor Party who say that they are interested in poverty. Mr Wran says that one thing the Government will not do, whether it is a time of financial stringency or not, is hurt the poorest people in the community. What is he doing now? He is closing the soup kitchens, and all Senator Coates and Senator Richardson can talk about is what they did when they came to office to save pensioners paying higher taxes. That is not the group we are talking about; we are not talking about that group at all-we are talking about the real needy. Mr Wran says that it is a Federal responsibility and Senator Grimes says it is Mr Wran's responsibility, but while Wran, Hawke and Grimes are fighting, the real needy suffer. We have all quoted comments about the soup-kitchens in New South Wales. The Hare Krishnas say that for the very first time in five years they have run out of food. The Smith Family is saying that for the very first time on record it is turning away scores of people. The Bondi Junction office of the Department of Youth and Community Services, which used to deal with 35 people a day, is giving food to only two or three people. Its district officer says that the excessively rigid criteria for assistance are the cause of the problem. The Bondi Beach Cottage, which is another voluntary organisation, was stormed by unemployed people and single parents who had been denied the services of the Department of Youth and Community Services by Mr Wran. The St Vincent de Paul Society says that it had a 50 per cent rise in the number of people coming to it, and the Sydney City Mission has had an 82 to 100 per cent rise in numbers. Yet all Senator Coates and Senator Richardson can talk about is the fact that they have given additional tax relief to pensioners. Senator Coates —You were not listening, obviously. Senator WALTERS —Senator Coates did get stuck into the Wran Government, saying it was all its fault, but he does not care. He is a good Pontius Pilate; all he says is: `We wash our hands of it; it is the Wran Government's fault'. Senator Grimes, who has gone away on a trip, says that it is all Mr Wran's fault. Mr Walker cannot be found by the media today to come up with any possible excuse for this situation. Let us look at the history of this matter. Senator Coates said that all the Opposition was doing was making a political point out of a newspaper story. Anybody would think it was being discussed today for the first time, but back in January this year a headline said: `Walker axes 20 welfare groups . . .' That was in January, not in October. The Darlinghurst Neighbourhood Centre was closed, as were the Holdsworth Street Community Centre in Woollahra, the Dulwich Hill Community Centre and so on. In February it was the turn of the Blacktown Community Centre, the Auburn Community Centre, the Blue Mountains Community Centre and so on. There are many more. In August-all this is before 1 October, so Senator Grimes had plenty of opportunity to act as he knew just what was happening-we find the headline `Government plays it tough as needy fail to get aid'. The following article stated: The State Government is turning away each week more than 3,000 very poor people who ask for emergency funds to buy food or pay urgent bills, a secret report says. . . . The report says only one in every two of the 6,300 families or individuals each week who sought help from the Department of Youth and Community Services actually received assistance. The YACS office had a rush of people. One in 10 could not be interviewed on the day they applied because of the numbers waiting and one in 25 were given appointments for the next day but could not be interviewed. So the Youth and Community Services Department is not even seeing the people; it is turning away people and not even making appointments to see them. But this is not a problem just in New South Wales; Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria also have their difficulties. It is said that in Western Australia the needy cannot get help. The welfare groups say that requests for help from needy people are being refused by the Department for Community Services. So all the Labor States are now bowing out and saying that it is not their problem, it is the Commonwealth's problem. The Commonwealth is saying: `Let the people suffer because there is no way we are going to come to the aid of the States; the States should be paying the bill'. Senator Grimes has said that the new Budget will cure the problem. He has pleaded with Mr Wran to continue paying the bills until the welfare poverty traps that he says are covered in the Budget are fixed. He says that the Commonwealth is making its contribution towards reducing poverty in Australia but as many of the recent Budget measures do not take effect until May 1986 he asks the New South Wales Government to delay its departure from the emergency relief area. What on earth is he talking about? Is $2 going to cure this situation? It has nothing to do with it. The bill, as Senator Coates said earlier, could go up to $5,000m in New South Wales. Because it is such a large amount a $2 increase next year is not going to help the situation at all. Many promises have been broken. As we all know, the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, promised to increase the weekly pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings but when asked when he is going to do it, he says: `It is conceivable that we might get it done, but I am not in the business of making promises that I cannot keep'. We know about the promises that he has not kept. The Prime Minister says: `We will not touch the pensioner's pay packet'. We know that he has, indeed, more than touched the pensioner's pay packet. He has not been keeping his promises. He made a promise recently in the Budget, saying that the Government places a very high priority on improving the lot of the most disadvantaged in our community. That is a pretty high priority to just wash one's hands of and, as Senator Coates has said, say: `We will not take the responsibility. Let the people go hungry; let them go without shelter. We will not give them a meal because we say Mr Wran should be doing it'. Some priority! The Labor Government stands condemned both federally and in New South Wales. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.48) —We are discussing a matter of public importance introduced by the Opposition, namely: The failure of the Federal Labor Government, in common with the New South Wales Labor Government, to provide adequate emergency relief for the poor. This is a new-found concern for the poor by the Liberal and National parties. Senator Walters and her Liberal colleagues for weeks on end have had this chamber reverberating with cries about the businessmen's lunches that are going to be no more, we hope. These people have been concerned that the elite in this society should have their privileges preserved. Senator Walters today has finally introduced poor people into the Liberal Party's concerns by referring to the soup kitchens. That is an indication, when we consider the record of the Liberal and National parties, of just how insincere they are. Australians remember the assault that they made during their seven-year period in government on the social wage of the community; they remember the welfare, health and other aspects of the social wage and the Fraser Government knocking off $3 billion-indeed, close to $4 billion-in its last year. If we look at public welfare, housing and other components of the social wage and transfers as a share of gross domestic product, we find that the figure in 1981-82 was $11,484m, as against the proposed figure in 1985-86 of $19,077m. These figures show a real loss to people under the Liberal-National Party Government. We have to ask ourselves whether we can trust members of the former Government and whether they have changed. In considering whether they have changed, I go no further than to read the Australian of 13 September 1985, which contains an article entitled `Maintenance for sole supporting partents to rise'. The first paragraph stated: A Federal Cabinet decision to change the Family Law Act will effectively increase the level of maintenance payments to separated supporting parents. One would think that this is absolutely essential to help people in need. The article continued: The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Chaney, indicated the benefit to single parents would be one of the first targets of a Coalition government. He said both supporting and non-supporting parents should `exercise their responsibility' in maintaining their children and that the Coalition would reconsider eligibility for the benefit. Senator Chaney has the axe out for those people. He did not say in the article that over 50 per cent or half the sole parent families are living below the poverty line. They face the axe under a Liberal Party government. The figures to which I refer are from the Institute of Family Studies. The Liberal Party does not come to this debate with clean hands. I do not deny that there is a disagreement between the Federal and the State Government. Senator Peter Baume —You can't deny it. Senator CHILDS —I do not deny it. It is regrettable but it is not the first time that there has been a difference between a Federal and a State government. It must be considered in the overall context of the Federal Government's program and the Budget that is currently before this Parliament-the third Labor Budget that continues the Government's policy of progressively addressing poverty in Australia. The increases in this year's Budget continue the process of redistribution through the social security system begun in 1983. That is very important because the Government is continuing to assault the problems and is trying to redress the legacy of the Fraser period. Senator Peter Baume quoted from the motto on the Statue of Liberty when he said: `Give me your poor'. The Fraser Government certainly gave its poor. When we came to government we had a legacy from the Fraser Government, to which Senator Coates referred, of 632,837 people on the dole-unemployed. Taken in the context of the three million Australians living in poverty, that is very serious. Senator Peter Baume —Then why are you withdrawing emergency relief from them? Senator CHILDS —Our Government has reduced that figure to 529,744. That is a significant move against one of the major contributors to poverty in this country. Let us look at the past of the former Government. As Senator Richardson pointed out, we have to remind the Australian people that one cannot just wash away matters for which one is responsible. I will remind the Senate of some of those things in a moment. Some of the problems in New South Wales come from the previous Government's cuts in spending on the social wage. Of course, the decrease in moneys allocated to the most populous States is a major problem. Senator Baume and Senator Puplick, during their period of office, did not say very much about the amounts that went to the State Governments of New South Wales and Victoria. New South Wales Liberal and National Party senators allowed the vast distortion of money going to the people of New South Wales being reduced by special hand- outs to Senator Boswell's State, Queensland, and other States that could stand over the Federal Fraser Government and demand additional payments. One difficulty that we have had in New South Wales is a result of many years of conservative governments not allocating the amount of money needed, particularly in the period from 1975 to 1982. The political football, the formula for deciding the allocation of Federal funds, has been changed to represent, on the most recent occasion, a fairer distribution of finance. Speaking as a New South Wales senator, I expect that for the first time that distortion will be eliminated. Under a Labor Government people in the most populous States will be given a reasonable chance of redressing some of the problems that are quite characteristic of very large populations, such as that in New South Wales. No New South Wales senator on the Liberal or National Party side cares to look at that. I remind the Senate of some of the problems with which we have to deal. An amount of $3 billion is needed partly as a result of the additional payment for children, which was down by 27.7 per cent. The mother-guardian's allowance was down 104.3 per cent; rent assistance was down 2 per cent; the single adult unemployment rate fell by 7.5 per cent; and family allowances had fallen 23 per cent since 1976. These were the real problems that we faced. Of course, one of the things that contributed to the difficulties of the New South Wales Government, and indeed people throughout Australia, was that indexation of pensions and benefits was changed from six-monthly to annually. This was reversed only after a vigorous campaign by the Australian people. Indexation was abolished for single adults on unemployment benefits-one of the most hideous decisions of the Fraser Government which caused so much hardship to young people in distress. It is important to remember that these decisions were taken by the Fraser Government at the same time that Medibank was demolished and funding for public housing was cut by two-thirds in real terms. And Liberal senators have the audacity to talk about public housing in New South Wales, or in any other State, when we are trying, with the tremendous housing program that this Government has introduced, to remedy the problems that were caused by the dearth of finance in public housing during their years in Government. Unfortunately, in this debate we are talking about a rather minuscule amount. It is certainly an important amount of money, but minuscule when we consider the amount that has to go into this Government's attempt to take up the slack that has been caused by the wasted Fraser years. Our main theme is the increase in the general prosperity of the community. We realise that, as I think my colleague Senator Coates said, on the eve of the 1983 election Senator Chaney increased the emergency aid amount to $2m. That is typical of the Liberal Party's way of dealing with things, especially with the poor. It has taken a piecemeal approach. Senator Boswell —At least we fed them. That is more than you are doing. Senator CHILDS —Yes, the Liberal Party made a promise. We have to compare that promise on the eve of an election and its implementation with what the Government has done. We have set about making sure that the economy is strengthened. As Ben Chifley, a former Labor Prime Minister, said-we stand by his statement-social security must be set in a framework of policies aimed directly and indirectly at full employment. It is common knowledge that we have been successful in turning around that debilitating level of unemployment that was a Fraser legacy. With that in mind, the Government has approached social security in this Budget with three aims: To improve the flexibility of the system, to direct resources to those in greatest need and to ease the transition from welfare to work. That is one of our main objectives. We are trying to make sure that people get out of poverty traps. The new carer's pension is just one example. We need to remember that this pension, this advantage to carers, has been increased by 40 per cent since we came to government. Senator Peter Baume —Tell them that up in Darlinghurst Road. Senator CHILDS —I am talking about poverty. Senator Peter Baume's Party is singularly unable to give a balanced view of poverty. All it can do is attempt to make capital out of a difference between funding for an important but, in light of what we are doing, very small amount of money. Honourable senators cannot deny the significance of a 40 per cent increase in the carer's pension to help people caring full time at home for an infirm or handicapped pensioner spouse or near relative. It replaces the existing spouse carer's pension which is paid only to husbands caring for a wife. This is just a small example of another section of people who have been helped by this Government. Time does not allow me to deal with all of the matters to which I would like to refer, but I must refer to Senator Mason's contribution. I want to make it quite clear that although Senator Mason voted in the correct way when we in this Parliament were trying to get at tax avoiders, unfortunately the majority of his colleagues in the Australian Democrats did not vote to make sure that we would have hundreds of millions of extra dollars available to take care of some of our welfare problems. It ill becomes the Democrats also to be chastising the Federal or the State governments, because they cannot say that they have acted in the interests of poor people. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.03) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Film Censorship Board finds itself in a situation whereby its work and the work of film censorship in Australia in general is under the closest of scrutiny. It is under scrutiny by an expert committee of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives building upon work undertaken by members of the previous Parliament. I wish to indicate very briefly three things arising out of this year's annual report. First, it is quite apparent that the work load upon the Censorship Board is altogether too great for the Board to cope with. The Board, which may consist of a Chief Censor, a Deputy Chief Censor and not more than 10 members, at the moment does not have a full complement of Commonwealth censors. I believe that the backlog of work which the Board faces at the moment is such that the Government should look seriously at increasing the number of available censors. Secondly, in part 5 of the report under the heading `General' one sees the cri de coeur of the Board regarding the difficulties that have arisen for it because of the Australian Capital Territory Classification of Publications Ordinance which was supposed to serve as a national model for film and video censorship in Australia and clearly has not been able to fulfil that role. Thirdly, I draw attention to what I think are rather disturbing indications in table 2 on page 4 of the report dealing with cinema features by country of origin. One sees that the number of cinema features released by country of origin in 1980 amounted to 35 from Australia out of a total of 1,074. In 1981 Australian features amounted to 29 out of a total of 1,081; in 1982, 74 out of a total of 1,271; in 1983, 31 out of 1,000; and in 1984, 31 out of 620. That brings home the point that the contribution made by Australian product to cinema releases in Australia has been declining over the last couple of years. The figure of 31 in 1983 and 1984 is well less than half of the figure of 74 that applied in 1982. I regret that financial and other pressures have led to a situation in which the impetus of the Australian film industry is no longer for the production of feature film but for the production of television material, particularly mini series and certain types of documentaries. I think that is very regrettable, because I believe that the Australian film industry should be based upon releases for cinema and not the production of yet more of what I think is rather second rate television material. I very much regret the decline of the feature film. I suspect that this will be even more apparent in the years to come as further changes in the Government's taxation approach to the film industry have their impact. The impact of the proposed tax changes in the taxation package recently announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be once again to increase the amount of television material produced and to move away from the amount of feature film produced. I think that will be very detrimental in the long term to the development of the Australian film industry. I hope that that trend can be halted and, indeed, reversed in the near future, although one is not particularly sanguine about that. I am interested to see that in line with changing trends in recent years more appeals to the Films Board of Review for cinema features, particularly appeals against classifications, have been upheld than dismissed. I think this is only indicative of the enormous pressure put upon the Film Censorship Board to make these decisions. I therefore conclude by appealing once again for a strengthening of the numbers on the Board. Four more members could be appointed to the Board under the existing legislation. I hope that the problems of the balance between the television industry and the film industry can be addressed in due course. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.08) —I turn to this report to comment basically on the question of classifications. The report deals with classifications under three separate headings-cinema films, features, films for hire or sale and television programs. The impact of the Board's classifications in these areas is, of course, significant. In the case of cinema features and films and videotapes for sale or hire the classifications are done on behalf of the States and Territories. In the case of television programs, the Board has an arrangement with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal whereby imported television programs and those not made under the auspices of a television station are examined and classified in accordance with the Tribunal's television program standards. Given the enormous consequences that these classifications have in the community and given the number of people affected by them and who rely on them to make decisions affecting their children's viewing and cinema going, it is vital that the classifications be as informative and clear as possible. At present, cinema features are classified as `G' for general exhibition; `PG' for parental guidance; `M' for mature audiences; and `R' for restricted exhibition when persons two years of age and over and under 18 years of age are not admitted. Television programs have a `G' classification, `PGR' and `AO'-suitable only for adults. These classifications are okay as far as they go, but I am concerned that there ought to be a further classification. I think that, perhaps due to our somewhat ascetetic background or whatever it might be, we tend to assess morality in terms of sexual activities and sexual content. That may have led us a little astray in this matter and allowed us to overlook a tendency in society now, particularly in films and television programs, which is I think equally as abhorrent as, if not more abhorrent than, any kind of explicit sexual material-that is, explicitly violent material. There is an abundant need for a new classification which would recognise this tendency, which would be, if one liked to call it, `V' for violent, and which would warn those who wish to see a movie or those whose children might be exposed to it that that film contained explicit violence of the type which so much material now, for some reason or other, does. There are many people in the community who do not want it, who recognise it as bad, in every way militating to the discredit of society, probably encouraging crime, certainly encouraging in young people and others-and children especially-the idea that it is perfectly all right to get a gun and shoot somebody or to beat them up and have blood flowing in the streets. My views on this are quite strong. I believe that it is bad, it is wrong, it is something in which we are indulging in our society at our peril. If we go on doing it indefinitely we will, of course, pay a continuing consequence for it. Senator Puplick —I hope there is no encouragement to violence in any of your books, Senator. Senator MASON —I have not written any lately; I have not had a chance to do it. I have been too busy in my duties as a senator. I will return briefly to the point to commend to the Government that it seriously look at this suggestion and that those of us in the community who feel that we find violence repugnant will find a classification for which I think appropriate and reasonable guidelines could be drawn up-I am sure in consultation with the industry-which would simply label a film `V' if it contained explicit, unnatural and unusual violence. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.12) —The Film Censorship Board has had a very difficult year. When Senator Evans was Attorney- General he had the Board in a dreadful mess. It had guidelines given to it that were changed repeatedly and so regularly that it did not have a clue what it was doing. I think much of this has come across in some of the classifications it has given to some of the videotapes that have been foisted on the community at the moment. I was interested that Senator Mason had a little idea all of his own. Perhaps it might be a good idea if he appeared before the Joint Select Committee on Video Material which is presently in existence. He may have forgotten that that Committee is still in existence. He has not applied to come before it. I am surprised if he has such strong feelings that he has not done so. It would probably be a great help if he did. The Board has a tremendous backlog of videotapes to be classified, and an even larger number of videotapes to be reclassified under the guidelines that Senator Evans eventually passed, having for some reason done a deal with the Australian Democrats in this chamber. We still have many problems in the area of films and videos. I seek leave to continue my remarks later and move: That the debate be adjourned till Thursday at General Business. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.15) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Report No. 15 of the Human Rights Commission entitled `The Human Rights of Australian-born children: A Report on the Complaint of Mr and Mrs M. Yilmaz' raises exactly the same matter as was raised by the Human Rights Commission in its report No. 10 dealing with the complaint of Mr and Mrs R. C. Au Yeung. It is a difficult situation in which persons come to this country and overstay their rights as visitors. They then become illegal residents of Australia. During the period that they are illegal residents they have children. Because the children are born in Australia-in this case two children are affected-the issue then arises, when it comes to the potential deportation of the parents, whether the rights of the child, as an Australian citizen not to be deported from Australia, have been compromised. Honourable senators will undoubtedly know that one of the clauses of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill which has been introduced in the House of Representatives provides that no Australian citizen shall be forced to leave Australia. A very difficult situation arises in this case, as it did in the earlier case, because the children who are Australian citizens are in effect being deported because their parents are properly being deported. I am very grateful for the fact that, together with this Human Rights Commission report, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, has included a statement. I would like to read part of Mr Bowen's statement into the record. The Attorney-General states: I disagree with the interpretations placed by the Commission on the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. I do not consider that the deportation of prohibited non-citizens amounts, in practice, to the deportation of Australian citizens if the parents choose to take their Australian-born children out of the country with them. I do not consider the lawful deportation of such prohibited non-citizens affects the rights of the child as spelt out in the various international instruments. That is the text of the Minister's statement. The Minister is to be commended for having laid down a statement of government policy so that people know precisely where the Government stands on this matter. When we were looking at report No. 10 dealing with the earlier couple, it was unclear what the Government's statement of policy was and the way in which it derived that policy. With report No. 15 we now have a statement of government policy. That should serve as a clear indication to people who are thinking of deliberately avoiding the provisions of the Migration Act, by staying in Australia as prohibited non-citizens, having children here and hoping that the status of their children will allow them to subvert the requirements of Australia's migration legislation. Human Rights of Australian-Born Children We are going to be faced with a very difficult matter which will have to be determined, probably judicially, if the Government proceeds to enact its Bill of Rights in exactly the form in which it currently stands in the House of Representatives. That Bill puts in statutory form and in Australian domestic law the right of an Australian citizen not to be deported in a way which I think will cause some difficulties in cases such as the one which has occasioned the report of the Human Rights Commission which we have before us today. My only purpose in moving that the Senate take note of the report was to put the Minister's statement into the record and to say that I think that now the Minister has clarified this matter as a point of government policy-may I say I think a correct statement of what policy ought to be-I hope that fewer of these problems will come before the Human Rights Commission and less personal, emotional and family distress will be caused by people deliberately seeking to use this avenue to subvert the provisions of Australia's migration laws. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Criminal injuries compensation legislation, ordinances or things of that ilk are, as I think honourable senators would well know, of some concern to me. I have expressed an interest in this matter in the past. I would like to take the opportunity today to say some more on it. Less than a month ago I placed on the Notice Paper a motion that was designed to draw the Senate's attention to various inadequacies in criminal injuries compensation legislation throughout Australia. The lack of uniformity in this sort of legislation throughout the States and Territories is a fairly massive inadequacy and an inequity as far as the people who apply for compensation under the legislation are concerned. Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance I note in passing that it was not until the end of June 1983 in fact that such a scheme came into operation in the Australian Capital Territory-a scheme which was apparently aimed at ensuring that victims of crime in the Australian Capital Territory were in fact able to seek compensation for their injuries and the resultant pecuniary loss of expenses. The scheme has, therefore, been in operation for slightly over two years. It is pleasing to note that an increasing number of applications are being made under the ordinance-pleasing, not because there are obviously more people suffering from criminal injuries, but pleasing because obviously an increasing number of people are becoming aware of the fact that they do have some rights of redress in the Australian Capital Territory if they do sustain an injury through some criminal action. I am, however, sad to note that the brochure outlining the Australian Capital Territory scheme which was recommended in the last report is still only in the course of preparation. I hope that the brochure comes to fruition fairly quickly. One important aspect of criminal injuries compensation-the aspect to which my notice of motion drew particular attention-is the inadequate maximum amounts payable to people who suffer from criminal injuries and, by corollory, the inequity that exists between people who suffer an injury because of a criminal assault or action and somebody else who suffers a similar injury through a car or work related accident. There is no doubt that the compensation that people get in those several instances is patently unequal indeed. The Australian Capital Territory has a maximum of $20,000. Several of the awards made during the past year, exemplify both the inadequacy of the amount and the ways in which those making the awards try to get around the fact that those maximum amounts are in fact too low. One case involved a woman having to have both legs amputated after her husband shot here in each leg. The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court considered that the applicant had sustained two prescribed injuries and made an interim award of $40,000. I think that speaks for itself. One wonders just how much that women would have received in compensation had she lost both legs as a result of a work accident or a car accident. In another case the court again found that two prescribed injuries had been sustained and that finding enabled the payment of a sum equal to the likely damage had it in that case been a civil claim. In summary, I would have to say that the report is indeed welcome as the scheme, within its limitations, appears to be benefiting more victims of crime obviously than would benefit without the compensation legislation. As the years go by and the scheme operates, so more and more people get to learn about it and therefore more and more people are compensated. At the same time, I would have to say that the report points up some of the inadequacies and inequities in this area vis-a-vis motor vehicle or work accident compensation. I hope that when my motion is debated the problems expressed in this report will be taken into account by other senators. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Puplick) agreed to: That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Puplick and relating to the disallowance of the Customs Regulations (Amendment), be postponed until Wednesday, 16 October 1985. Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.25) —The Companies Amendment Bill 1985 and the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 are supported by the Opposition. They have the effect of reducing the administrative burden on those in business and it is somewhat rare that we have legislation come before this chamber which has this effect. It is, therefore, not surprising that we support it. There are some matters though that we would in different circumstances seek to amend. I am not sure whether that is still the case, as the Opposition has just been presented with certain amendments by the Government which have gone through the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities and which I have not yet had time to examine properly. However, certainly subject to those amendments doing what we would otherwise seek, we have a couple of amendments which in normal circumstances we would have sought to introduce. It is very difficult with legislation of this type. It is therefore an opportune time for me to express again my concern as to this method of legislating by Ministerial Council rather than by the Parliament. It is true that the procedure provides for parliamentary rubber stamping but that is exactly what it is-no more and no less-simply a rubber stamping because of the fact that there is no effective way for the Parliament to amend the legislation that comes before it. Passing a Bill, as you would know, Mr Deputy President, by this method by the Federal Parliament has the effect that it becomes law of the Commonwealth and law in each of the States. A Bill cannot come to the Federal Parliament until it has been approved by the Ministerial Council. Presumably an amendment, if accepted by the Chair, therefore defeats the whole Bill. Nobody quite knows the effect of the Senate seeking to amend that which has been agreed by the Ministerial Council. What this really amounts to is that this Parliament and the representatives of this Parliament have been prepared by this system of legislation to abdicate their responsibility to the Executive. I never cease to be amazed that such a procedure could have been adopted by the Parliament some years ago. On the brighter side, one advantage of this unique method of legislating is that it has forced the bureaucracy into a process of comprehensive consultancy. We certainly do not condemn that. The opportunity for greater public input in the legislative process is something that we on this side of the chamber certainly applaud. Public input has meant that the principal of the two Bills is in a very different form from that which was first put out for public scrutiny. The proposed amendments, these Bills, were released for public comment in January of this year. They dealt with, first, the question of limited liability for the holders of units in unit trusts, and secondly, the introduction of a new shorter form of annual return. The Ministerial Council is not proceeding with the first, which it decided was better dealt with by administrative means rather than through legislation-that is, by the National Companies and Securities Commission requiring a prospectus to include a prominent statement as to whether the trust deed limits the liability of a unit holder. The theory is that investors can make up their own minds. I must say in passing, however, that the whole maze of unit trusts certainly requires a much more detailed consideration than that which this Parliament has given it in the past. I will expand upon that in a few moments. The need for that consideration, one could argue, has come about or at least has been made more prominent by a number of recent unfortunate examples in the unit trust area. The Companies Amendment Bill deals with the second of the matters that were covered in the first exposure draft and the reduction of the regulatory burden on the business community by means of simpler forms of annual returns. As I said in opening, that is supported. Even that part of the original exposure draft has, however, been modified by the public exposure procedure. The Bills which are now before the chamber involve the introduction of a new form of annual return partially prepared by the corporate affairs commissioners and using, where the States have such equipment, automatic data processing equipment. Such annual returns are to include certain key financial data which are set out in the Bill. A matter which was included in the original exposure draft and which is not now covered was the intention to relieve exempt proprietary companies that do not have their accounts audited of the obligation to lodge a copy of accounts and other documents with their annual return. That is no longer there. It was also apparent from the original exposure draft that the time limits for the lodging of returns were to be reduced. After consideration of submissions which were forwarded that provision also has now been deleted. I have mentioned that there are two specific matters which have caused us some little concern and on which, under normal circumstances, we would have wished to introduce amendments for consideration. They were raised by the Law Institute of Victoria. But for the amendments that have just been given to me by the Government I would have asked for some explanation as to why they were not covered in the original Bills. I suspect, as I said, that they may now be covered by the Government's own amendments. The first is that under proposed new section 275A(1) the Commission may call for accounts, arguably, even from an exempt proprietary company with an auditor. That seems inconsistent with what the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said in his second reading speech. Also it seems illogical to change the exposure drafts so that brief details do not have to be included in an annual return; yet under proposed new section 275A(1) a full set of accounts may be required. The Law Institute of Victoria felt that there may be some inconsistency in that respect and it appears to us also to be the case. As I said, I have to study the amendments that have only just been presented to me. I must say that it is a pretty unsatisfactory way of doing business, but the matter I have raised may be covered in the amendments. The second matter which we would have wanted to raise by way of amendment concerns the details regarding a change of director which are included in an annual return and which are provided by the Bill to have the same effect as if there they were included in a separate return of directors. That is common sense and is to be applauded. Yet section 68A(3)(b) of the principal Act has not been amended, which means that the provision that is contained in the annual return cannot be relied upon. That is a matter of some detail and could, in a normal situation, be easily remedied by an amendment. Unless the Government has included it in the amendments put before us today, there is nothing we can do about it. I regard that as a matter of regret. I repeat that the Government cannot even introduce an amendment unless the amendment has first gone through the Ministerial Council. Therefore, matters such as that cannot be dealt with in this unique type of law making and I regard that as totally unsatisfactory. It is of concern to me, and I think to many on my side, that so little interest is now taken in the Parliament in this field. That may be related to the fact that when the Parliament no longer has a responsibility in an area it is more likely to lose interest. I do not think that that is a good thing. Certainly, it is arguable in this time of rapid change in the corporate area that there is a particular need for parliamentary involvement. It is arguable whether, in the regulatory framework within which business must operate, the rules of fair play are keeping pace in a time of rapid change. It is arguable whether investor protection to which much corporate legislation is directed is now adequate or relevant. It was interesting for me to hear Mr Bosch, the new Chairman of the NCSC, speaking at the recent Australian Legal Convention in Melbourne. He has obviously recognised very quickly the deficiencies created by the pace of change. On that subject he said: The whole pattern of investment is in flux. As might be expected this has gone hand in hand with a surge of entrepreneurial energy and innovation. For instance, in December 1980 the first cash management trust was introduced. By June 1983, there were 16 of them with a total of $2.28 billion in investor funds. There are now in Australia 18 managers of unlisted property trusts, 10 managers of equity trusts, 8 managers of mortgaged trusts, 14 managers of cash management trusts and 8 life offices offering insurance investment bonds. In addition, a number of other investment products have been developed including timeshare schemes, franchise schemes, agriculture and rural investment schemes, film investment schemes and retirement villages. To someone who only a few years ago practised a lot in this field, that paragraph in itself is evidence of the massive change that has taken place. The Chairman reflected, I believe accurately, that the Australian regulatory framework has failed to keep pace with this organisational change. With this great increase in financial products on offer has come a new world of investment dealers. On that subject Mr Bosch said: The operation of the primary factors has given rise to a great many financial products, cash management trusts, insurance bonds, more sophisticated futures contracts, variations of traded options and the re-introduction of short selling come to mind. To handle them and to help the traditional products compete an increasing number of advisers and dealers have entered the financial field using an array of titles including investment advisers, investment consultants, investment planners, securities dealers, investment specialists and many others. Senator Haines —How long do they stay in business? Senator HILL —Some stay in business for a very short period; some stay in business for longer. That changing need for investor protection, which I think should be evident from the circumstances which I have just related, should be a real concern for this Parliament. How we meet that challenge as to the pace of change in these areas is a critical question of attitude. Mr Bosch put his solution when, in concluding his paper, he said in part: Many of our laws and regulations are already showing signs of being inadequate, irrelevant or unenforceable and changes we can see coming will certainly make the position worse. Substantial change in the pattern of regulation is therefore inevitable. The best we can do is to make it less complex and difficult by moving away from reliance on legislation towards a greater use of rules and policy statements. I disagree with that. For all the weaknesses in matters of certainty of law and all the extra work it might require for a parliament and all the extra work that might be involved in interpretation, I strongly believe that certainty under the law is better than any system that is replaced by bureaucratic discretion, rules and policy statements. Mr Bosch's concluding comments might simply reflect the fact that he was speaking to an American presentation given by Professor Loss, but certainly in this complex field where there is need for change I do not want to see this country going down the American path. I think that is the wrong way to go. In concluding, I say again that we support the Bills because this is an example of deregulation which is for the benefit of the whole industry. It reduces the burden for business in a sensible way, and that is to be applauded. I do not support deregulation that will be replaced by a greater bureaucratic discretion. I regret the disinterest that is being shown by the Parliament in this matter. If one goes past Mr Jacobi in the House of Representatives, and Senator Peter Rae who will be speaking in this debate and who has taken a major role in this subject matter for many years, it will be seen that very few people take an interest in this matter. To that extent we are not meeting our responsibility to the Australian people. We should look for a mechanism in which the Parliament might again become more active in this area and meet the responsibility which the people of Australia are entitled to expect of it. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(5.42) —The Companies Amendment Bill 1985 and the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 enact provisions approved by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The provisions under the Companies Amendment Bill relate to company returns, and the provisions under the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill allow the collection of moneys under the new scheme of company legislation. Before making any comments on these Bills, I will pick up a point made by Senator Hill at the close of his address. I agree with him that certainty under the law is important in a complex area such as company law. I am sure he did not say that merely because he is a lawyer who is no doubt experienced in this field, and I certainly do not say it from that point of view. However good the theory is, I do not believe that we can exist in a situation which is basically ad hoc, where the rules are not defined or established at law and where companies themselves are uncertain as to how they can and cannot operate. These Bills are essentially unexceptionable and the Australian Democrats, like the Opposition, will be supporting them. Basically, this legislative package corrects existing problems, and the passage of these Bills will mean that from today onwards the legislation will operate in the best interests of the companies concerned. This is particularly true of those companies which are already overburdened by paper work and regulations, as Senator Hill has already pointed out. I dare say that these companies will be grateful for the small mercies that are contained in these two Bills-in particular the fact that the Government has not proceeded with plans to add yet more paper work to an already overburdened system by applying the new form of company return to exempt proprietary companies. Certainly most companies in Australia would define themselves as being overregulated and they will all welcome changes to the legislation that require less paper work and less cost to them as a consequence. Furthermore, the Government has changed its tune with regard to the time within which annual returns must be filed. This, too, will place a less heavy burden on the companies concerned. The Australian Democrats have always argued that smaller businesses and companies need to be hassled as little as possible by governments, State and Federal. As Senator Hill pointed out, these Bills go some way towards that end. In certain areas the Government could well look at undertaking deregulation more often than it does and, because these Bills go some little way towards ensuring that, we will support them. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.45) —I want to make some fairly broad general remarks in this second reading debate on the Companies Amendment Bill and the Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill. First, I agree with Senator Hill's comments about the operation of co-operative federalism in this particular instance. I believe that this a good demonstration of where one should not use co-operative federalism, and where one needs something that is flexible, fast acting and capable of rapid change to meet the needs of a particular time. The National Companies and Securities Commission and the structure under which it operates cannot be so described. In case people are not aware of the detail, although it has been referred to a number of times, I know that there are still some people who are not aware that the National Companies and Securities Commission operates through its delegates or its agents in each of the States. We still have the corporate affairs commissions which tend to have their own ways of going about things, but over the top of them and working through them is the National Companies and Securities Commission. I believe that the stage has been reached where little attention is paid to changes in company law by the parliaments of Australia, which is an undesirable situation. Relatively little attention is paid to them because there is relatively little that any parliament can do without holding matters up because they then have to go back to Ministerial Council. At least we have improved the original situation, which required unanimity in Ministerial Council, to a situation where now a majority is adequate to make change. One can anticipate some desirable changes. One of the first changes should be to go through the whole legislation and out put every second clause. One could go from there to see what one had to put back in. The legislation is a monster. It looks like the proverbial camel; it is a horse designed by a group of people. We have got the lowest common denominator among all the various people who came together in this exercise in co-operative federalism. Everybody wanted what they knew to be put into this legislation. Instead of a simplification of the existing 14 laws that applied to the companies that traded around Australia we have wound up with something which in content is about three times as complex. That is one of our great regrets in the Senate. A Senate committee did a lot of work to recommend and point out why it was desirable to have a single, national responsibility for national companies which, under the Constitution, is clearly intended. That statement comes from somebody who normally argues for States' rights and I make that quite clear. But company law on a national basis was clearly intended by the founding fathers under placitum (xx), section 51, of the Constitution to be a function of the Federal Parliament. Having made those comments, I pay tribute to the work carried out by the original Chairman of the Commission, Leigh Masel, and the original deputy chairman, John Coleman. I know that they had to battle hard to develop a relatively complex set of laws with relatively little, and certainly no cohesive, force behind them. It was a matter of building up an organisation that would be able to undertake the work that was its responsibility. They were at first also hampered by the problem of adjusting to the Public Service Board oversight of what was required in balancing the need to keep down costs with the need of the organisation to be able to operate efficiently. It took quite a period of time for the National Companies and Securities Commission to obtain a staffing level sufficient for it to do the job that was necessary. I believe that Australia owes a very considerable debt to those two gentlemen, both of whom have now retired at the conclusion of the terms for which they were appointed. They provided a balance to each other in many ways and worked towards the development, as much as could be done, of a successful organisation which, as I have said, was described initially as a camel instead of a racehorse. The new Chairman, Mr Henry Bosch, I think has started well. He has brought forward a number of new approaches to the function. In particular, he has raised the matter of takeovers and mergers and the benefit or otherwise which they bring to a country such as Australia. I think we have to look carefully-I would like to hear debate in this chamber-of the matter of takeovers and mergers and whether they bring benefit or detriment to a country of our size with a market of our size. Let me show the size of our securities market by saying that several years ago the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations did a survey of all the Commonwealth statutory authorities. It found, when it aggregated the various financial figures relating to those authorities, that the land, buildings-most of them at original purchase price, not at revalued price-and external investments of the Commonwealth statutory authorities amounted to more than half the value of the market capitalisation of all the public listed companies in Australia. That gives some idea of the magnitude of the statutory authority sector. When we add to it as well the State statutory authorities we can see that we are a country with a very mixed economy. A large part of it is publicly operated. We have a relatively limited securities market. I believe that one of the things necessary for Australia to be able to develop and to get out of a number of the problems which we have is to build greater depth and breadth into that securities market. Our stock exchanges have fewer than 1,000 listed companies, yet last year more than 100 takeover bids were made. That was one-tenth of the number of companies listed. I refer to what Mr Bosch said in an address to the Takeovers, Mergers and Acquisitions Conference held in Sydney on 11 July 1985. He said: Public discussion of takeovers in Australia in recent years has tended to assume that they bring benefit, both to shareholders and to the economy at large. Some of those who instigate or take a frequent role in the takeover process have been elevated into folk heroes-the acceptance has been far too uncritical. We went on to review some of the advantages. He referred in particular to the three principal arguments which are usually advanced in defence of takeovers. The first is that they stimulate boards of directors and managements. Secondly, they lead to the replacement of weak managements by stronger ones. Thirdly, they lead to the rationalisation of industries and the better use of resources. In the pages which follow is his commentary on each of those. He comes down to raising a real question of whether they have given the advantage which many people claim they have. There is considerable doubt that they have brought great benefit to this country, although, undoubtedly, some of them have. In relation to the problems which takeovers create, let us consider, first, the problem of the limited breadth and depth of the market and, therefore, the limited scope which it is able to handle and the extent to which the market does not fulfil the function of capital formation for private enterprise to expand in this country. Secondly, we have the problem of the falling percentage of personal investment in shares in this country. I believe that that is a matter of concern. If people live in a country in which there is a free opportunity to participate in the growth areas of the economy-one can hope that the growth areas include principal listed companies-people can feel that they are growing with the nation and having a share in the growth of the nation. This applies particularly to employees of companies. One of the reasons why I believe that we ought to be reconsidering some of the public sector is so that we can try to get the ownership and control of more operations and enterprises into the hands of the employees so that they will have an incentive and a reward for what they do. I think a lot of work needs to be done in relation to considering that. At the moment we have the problem of the troubles in the unit and property trust area. I will not go any further than just to identify that. That is a very clear area of people being disuaded from investment in the stock market as such, but placing their money in trusts of one sort or another. Unitary and property trusts have grown exceedingly rapidly. As the Telford situation makes only too clear, not always have they been managed with the greatest perspicacity which is required. We have the need for many corporations to borrow overseas because of the relatively low savings in Australia. I believe that again it is a matter of considerable concern to this nation that we do not save as well as we used to. We do not save as well as we could and we certainly do not save as much as we need to. If this country is to develop we will need to encourage more people to save and to invest. We have the problem of an element of high roller gambling being present in the takeover game. I think one of the things that have concerned many people has been to see people making tens of millions of dollars out of a takeover bid which was obviously playing with the market rather than playing with the operation of an industry. At the moment there is nothing to prevent people from doing that. I do not criticise people for taking advantage of what they are allowed to do. But that raises the question of whether we need to review the law in relation to takeovers and mergers to see whether we should make it more or less restrictive. In some ways some of the restrictions we have at the moment give opportunity to those who would be the high rollers, as opposed to the freedom which might be given if we did not have as many laws and particularities of which advantage could be taken. Maybe we need more specific laws in relation to that but the one thing that is for sure is that we need to consider it. As corporations are creatures of legislation and are made by regulation, they are and must be subject to regulation, whatever they do. When I say `regulation' I do not mean that one has to regulate everything they do, but their existence alone requires that there be a form of regulation. They are artificial creatures created by regulation. One has to decide how far one goes in imposing further obligations on those bodies which have been created. Some of the pluses in relation to takeovers and mergers are that we have seen some Australian corporations become big enough to take a major international stance. I think Murdoch and the News Corporation, Abeles and Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, the Bond Corporation involvement in airships, the Holmes a Court involvement in British media and all the rest are examples of the sorts of developments which have given Australia and Australian business an opportunity to grow very rapidly through the strength which has been initially obtained in Australia. The bigger companies, through amalgamation by one means or another, have increased international trading status and linkages. Again one can point to what has happened with Elders and the development which it has undertaken in trading as well as business acquisition in other countries. That, along with the entry of foreign banks into Australia, can enhance our long cherished prospects of developing in this country a finance centre for the western Pacific. By the western Pacific I mean from north of Japan to south of Tasmania. I mean the whole of the western Pacific. One of the things this country could do-if we had got on with it earlier we could be doing it right now-is fulfilling the function of being a finance centre for the western Pacific. There are problems with Japan being able to fulfil that role; there are problems with Hong Kong being able to fulfil that role; there are problems with Singapore being able to fulfil that role. Yet all of these countries are doing it to a much greater extent than we are and all of them are doing it because of our default. We have sat back, too regulated, too limited, too isolated and too restrictive to be able to encourage that sort of development to take place. I think we need to lift our game, lift our sights, lift our visions and look outward in that respect. Another of the problems which we have to bear in mind-I know I am talking about something which has not yet come before us but I refer to it in this context-is the possibility of a capital gains tax and the way in which that can work to the detriment of those who have invested through the stock market in securities and shares in companies. The person who may be the loser in a takeover battle and who loses that which he has built up over a period of years may find himself with what is a most unwelcome capital gain which is then taxed. So having lost the battle in the takeover he loses the battle in relation to the funds. That is one of the things which has not been adequately taken into account at this stage but it is something which has a double penalty for the loser. It will certainly not encourage investment as it should. As opposed to that, takeovers can be of great benefit to many shareholders. Sometimes a person gets into a position where he is locked in; he cannot get out of it because of the lack of breadth and depth in our markets. It is only through a takeover that a person can get out of something that he might not wish to be in. Other concerns which are important in relation to mergers and takeovers are questions of the creation of monopolies, or duopolies, and the creation of just simply non-competitive markets, notwithstanding the Trade Practices Act. We have the risk that any benefits to shareholders arise at the expense of consumers or suppliers rather than as a product of economies of scale or superior management. Again that is one of the things which some people who talk about the benefits of takeovers forget. They forget that one of the reasons why the new company-the merged company-is being more successful is that it has control of the market. There is no competition to keep its prices down. Senator Haines —Precisely; especially in the retail area. Senator PETER RAE —Senator Haines said: `Especially in the retail area'. I want to make sure her interjection is picked up and is in Hansard. I wish I had time to talk about it but I have a number of other things I want to talk about. I want to talk about the concentration that there has tended to be-it tends to encourage a like public belief-on the notion that the stock market is something like a casino. When the takeover game is being played to too great an extent the average person sees that sort of action as high roller gambling, as I described it earlier, rather than the serious readjustment of business operation for its greater efficiency, greater profitability and greater wealth creation. Another of the problems is that management tends to spend a lot of its time looking over its shoulder. Decision making for only short term action takes place and the result ensures that predators are warded off. However, they are too nervous to engage in long term planning because very often long term planning involves investment which does not create a return for quite some time. As we become more and more complex so investment becomes bigger and very often the lead time becomes longer. The more one engages in that sort of development the more one exposes oneself, as a director of a company, to a takeover. The sort of investment where there is a long lead time does not provide cash flow. The beneficial development which we need in this country is sacrificed on the altar of short term gain in the management of far too many companies in this country. Australia needs to be more competitive internationally. We need far more research and in particular we need far more development. Our record in research is far better than our record in the application of the successes of that research. I will have to keep my good news stories of all the areas in which we have been successful in developing as a result of research. There are a lot of them. One which I like in particular is a computer company, an offshoot of one of the world's leading companies, which is selling technology back to its American parent. It is interesting to know that the new London taxi-cabs have transmissions that were made at Albury-Wodonga in Australia. The radios that are fitted into London taxis these days are made in Melbourne. These are the sorts of things which I believe show that we can have a good story if we have the right attitude. But too often we have the cringe mentality; too often we have the short term development mentality; too often we have a failure of both unions and shareholders to see the necessity for investment over a long period. For that investment to take place one must have either further investment by shareholders or profits made and retained. If neither of those things happens it is not very likely that one will get the development that is necessary. This, of course, brings forward the privatisation debate. If we are talking about the breadth and depth of the market we need to further our national economic development and we need some privatisation, where possible, to restore the breadth and depth of the securities market so that we are not limited to 1,000 listed companies and a reducing number at that. We need encouragement to direct employee participation in the employer corporation. We need the encouragement of investment savings wherever possible by the small as well as the large if they wish to and if they have faith in the system. Too often people have been directed into other forms of investment which have not necessarily been reliable. That brings me to investment advice and the delay which we have experienced in receiving from the National Companies and Securities Commission the promised paper in relation to a new law relating to investment advisers. In this country we have had a need for investment advice to be available and to be given objectively. One of the experiences one tends to hear about too often is that the percentage of advice which comes from bankers is for investment in an offshoot of the bank. If the advice comes from brokers it is for investment in shares in which the brokers have an interest. If the advice comes from other forms of investment advisers, such as those associated with trusts, the advice is likely to be to invest in a trust. In other words, there is a lack of independent advice and this is often complained about. To my knowledge no one has done an absolute survey so what I have said may be the exception rather than the rule. But certainly it is a complaint which has been heard and heard quite often. It is something about which the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange certainly found some evidence in the 1970s. I would like to quote something in relation to the question of whether we need a greater incentive to productivity and competitiveness and whether these things can be brought about as a result of some degree of privatisation or some greater concentration of opportunity of employee participation in an employer corporation. I would like to sum up this matter by using the words of Mr Bosch, the new Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, in a speech he gave to the Accounting Association of Australia and New Zealand in Sydney recently. Mr Bosch said: Wherever we compare a free enterprise system with a centrally planned one such as East versus West Germany or North versus South Korea, we find that our system works and theirs does not. Why is this so? Why is free enterprise so successful? Let me suggest just two factors. First, free enterprise harnesses the innate acquisitiveness, competitiveness and even aggressiveness of man to socially productive ends-this is Adam Smith's invisible hand at work. Second, our system provides a measure which enables and encourages rational decisions to be made. I think that that shows the attitude which has been adopted by Mr Bosch. It shows the attitude which needs to be adopted more widely. I would also like to take the opportunity today of welcoming the creation of the Australian Investment Planners Association. This organisation has developed a very extensive code of ethics. This organisation will give training and provide an inter-relationship with other professional bodies. I believe that the Association will assist in promoting the professionalism which is required in this area of our economy and economic activity. Finally, may I say that there is a quite urgent need to recover parliamentary interest in the development and change that is taking place. Development and change are not only brought about by governments. They can also be brought about as a result of parliamentary awareness and consideration. There needs to be exposure of what is required. I believe that a committee of this Senate needs to be constantly in a position to communicate with the National Companies and Securities Commission so that it can hear publicly, or in camera if necessary, about what is happening to the securities industry in Australia, corporate activity in Australia and the management thereof, so far as is necessary, by regulation. We could then possibly have a better approach, a more publicly tested approach, to the question of what changes by way of deregulation are necessary as well as what changes to the regulatory framework are necessary. I urge, as I have urged on prior occasions, that we move in the Senate as soon as possible to refer to one of the appropriate committees a reference for the continuing oversight of companies and securities law in this country. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make a few comments about this area. I am only sorry that we do not have a longer time to debate this matter because I would have liked to cover a number of other areas. No doubt we will get an opportunity to do so on another occasion. As has been said, we support the legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.14) —I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. Those contributions have been constructive and useful and are very much taken on board by the Government. Senator Peter Rae's themes have essentially been familiar ones, many of which he and I have been espousing over the years with a common cause in mind. I hope that as we further evolve our approach to companies and securities legislation and regulation it will be possible eventually to get some greater degree of coherence, consistency, rationality and principle into the system than is involved in this continuing system of the co-operative scheme. We may differ in various parts of the chamber as to the extent to which we would like to go in this respect but I think there is a common will to have an effective system of regulation in this area and a common belief that the system we have at the moment is not entirely optimal, not least in the way in which it gives the sole legislative responsibility to the Commonwealth in these matters but does not give the Commonwealth the complete and sole accountability for the operation of the system. So far as Senator Hill's speech is concerned, I respond only to a couple of points that he made, in particular his suggestion that he would have been inclined to seek amendments based on the Law Institute of Victoria submission to ensure that exempt proprietary companies that have an auditor do not have to lodge accounts under section 275A and that information in annual returns concerning directors can be relied upon for the purposes of section 68A. I simply make the point that it is my understanding that both the matters that he has referred to are in fact picked up in the Government amendments. Although we will have an opportunity to discuss this further in the Committee stage, I believe that the points are well made and have in fact been accepted by the Government. Had Senator Hill had a bit more time than he obviously did to study the amendments that have been circulated, I think he would appreciate that that is so. So far as Senator Rae's more specific contributions are concerned, he did query whether we need to review takeover laws to see, for example, whether their complexity favours professional advisers at the expense of people actually running companies and producing wealth. The short point I make about that is that the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee has a reference on the whole subject of takeovers which I hope and believe will have regard to the variety of matters that have been adverted to by Senator Rae. Senator Peter Rae —I was trying to encourage public debate a bit as well, which I think would be helpful to that inquiry. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to the honourable senator for that intervention. I am sure that his contribution will encourage debate, as it always does on these occasions. The other substantial point that I think he made was about a delay from the National Companies and Securities Commission in bringing forward proposals on investment advice. I am able to inform him that the NCSC is planning to seek public comments on its proposals this month. So it will be a matter of waiting only a few more days before this stuff is in the public domain where it clearly deserves to be. There are many other points that could be made in a debate of this kind which is necessarily wide ranging. However, it appears that there is no need for me to make any particular points about the actual substance of the legislation that is before us. I am indebted to honourable senators for their support for the measures that are now before the chamber. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.18) —by leave-I move the following amendments to the Companies Amendment Bill 1985: (1) page 1, clause 2, line 9, leave out `3', substitute `2A'. (2) Page 1, after clause 2 insert the following new clause: Persons having dealings with companies, &. `2A. Section 68A of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (3) (b) ``or with the Registrar of Companies under the'' and substituting ``or 263 or with the Registrar of Companies under a''.'. (3) Page 5, clause 9, line 25, insert `(not being an exempt proprietary company that is an unlimited company' after `company' (first occurring). (4) Page 5, lines 37 to 41 and page 6, lines 1 to 6, clause 9, leave out proposed sub-section 275A (4), substitute the following sub-section: ` ``(4) A company is not required to lodge a copy of a particular document with the Commission pursuant to a notice under sub-section (1) if, as at the time when the notice is served, the document has not been made out, but, if the document is made out after that time, the company shall lodge a copy of the document with the Commission within 14 days after the document is made out.''.'. In explanation of these amendments might I simply say this: Following the second reading speech on the Companies Amendment Bill 1985 back in May the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities received several late submissions on the Bill. After considering the matters raised in those submissions, the Ministerial Council asked the Commonwealth Government's member on the Council, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), to endeavour to have some minor amendments made to the Bill before its passage through the Senate. The most significant of these is an amendment to proposed section 275A of the Companies Act to ensure that the National Companies and Securities Commission does not have power under that section to obtain accounts from an unlimited exempt proprietary company. This will maintain the present situation whereby unlimited exempt proprietary companies are not required to disclose any financial information. The other amendments are essentially drafting points designed to ensure that the provisions operate as originally intended. None of the amendments involves impositions of new obligations on companies. An addendum to the explanatory memorandum which outlines the purpose of these amendments has been circulated for the information of honourable senators. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.20) —I have now had a chance to peruse the amendments and they do appear to take up the suggestions of the Law Institute of Victoria, so I presume that the Institute's submission is the submission to which the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) referred. As we believe that there is merit in that submission we will support the amendments. I would only say before sitting down that I think it is not unreasonable to request of the Minister that we have amendments of this nature a little earlier, rather than when we come into the chamber to debate a Bill. These amendments are of a non-controversial nature and presumably have been in the hands of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for some months. Perhaps some greater considerations could be given to that point in the future. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(6.21) —I am indebted to Senator Hill for his contribution. I accept the force of his very politely expressed complaint about not having earlier access to the amendments. It is a point well made and I will endeavour to ensure that that situation does not recur in the future. Amendments agreed to. Companies Amendment Bill 1985, as amended, and Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 agreed to. Bills reported with amendments; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.22) —The Senate is debating two associated Bills dealing with the Australian Federal Police; firstly, the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill and, secondly, the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill. The Opposition will not be opposing either Bill. The Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill allows the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police to better utilise his manpower resources through management initiated redeployment and provides adequate appeal safeguards. It also makes provision for members who cannot be redeployed, invalidity and retirement. They are all clearly sensible provisions for a disciplined police force. However, the Opposition is concerned about a number of matters, and they are the matters I wish to address in the course of this speech. The first matter of concern is the delay in implementing recommendations of the Management Review Committee. The Management Review Committee has apparently met and completed its report and has made its recommendations to the Government but the Government has not yet taken any steps to implement those recommendations. This is a matter of grave concern, expecially as at the moment a review of resources is being conducted. It seems to the Opposition to be grossly unfair for the Australian Federal Police to be asked to conduct a review of resources-that, in itself, is reasonable-at a time when the Government is taking no steps to implement the findings of the previous review. The Australian Federal Police should be leading the way in standards and performance among law enforcement agencies. Special Prosecutor Redlich said in his annual report: The antiquated resources available to those federal authorities responsible for controlling such anti-social behaviour should be cause for the greatest public disquiet. I draw those remarks to the attention of the Government and ask it to make some response and look into this matter. Canberra people are properly concerned that the provision of their police services has now been relegated in priority by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) from number one to number five. The police service in Canberra was allocated as number one by section 8 of the Australian Federal Police Act, but recently, when the Special Minister of State set out the objectives for the Australian Federal Police force, he put the policing of the Australian Capital Territory down to number five. There have been a number of complaints by people in Canberra about that-and properly so-because before the amalgamation of the police forces that formed the Australian Federal Police the people of the Australian Capital Territory were assured that it would lead to enhanced police services in Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory police force is highly respected but now seriously undermanned. That was noticeable during the recent World Cup Athletics when there was a grave shortage of road patrols. This leads to a number of questions which must be put to the Government. I understand that proposed cost recoveries were effected during the World Cup Athletics. I would like to know what those cost recoveries were. I wonder whether the Government is, in fact, double-dipping by having cost recoveries but then taking away from the Australian Capital Territory other services. If that is the case is not the Government, in effect, double-dipping on the people of Australia? Were the police paid overtime for the long hours involved or were they simply told to take time off in lieu of payment? What other normal functions suffered in the Australian Capital Territory during this time? Is it true, according to one report, that 50 per cent of police vehicles are clapped out and would not pass road worthiness tests. These are the sorts of problems which concern the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We know that the Minister in charge has denied that there have been any cutbacks in funds available to the Australian Federal Police, but increasing the number of tasks dilutes resources and effects cuts in practical terms. Police dissatisfaction continues to be reported and indications are that dissatisfaction is evident amongst some of the most highly dedicated officers-officers who do not have adequate resources to do their jobs properly or who have to defer important investigations because of the lack of overtime available, or who are misemployed for their qualifications. I recollect talking to one of the most highly qualified senior officers shortly before he resigned in complete frustration. He was misemployed and was not being used according to his qualifications. A very expensive course that he had undertaken had been totally wasted. It is my belief that the Government is now using skilled personnel on less skilled tasks, on general duties such as those duties involving crowd control at demonstrations. Priority is not being given to combating crime. Is this the result of Government interference and direction? There is a need for more and better qualified officers and for use of the latest technology in the Australian Federal Police. While self-help is admirable-and the recently introduced neighbourhood watch pilot program in Canberra is to be commended-it cannot and should not be a substitute for adequate policing; it can only be an adjunct to policing. It appears from answers given to Senator Archer at an Estimates committee hearing that this review of resources is now under way. The Opposition will look forward to seeing the report of that review and its implementation. It is important that the Government give priority to the outcome and not delay it in the same way that it treated the previous recommendations of the Management Review Committee. It is also hoped that it will speedily introduce legislation that protects police dog handlers from civil litigation, which is apparently necessary. During the Estimates committee hearings Senator Archer also highlighted the real reduction in overtime provided. While officers responded that the overtime `should be sufficient to meet our needs', this is an area which the Opposition believes needs the closest scrutiny. What is surrendered to reduce overtime? The Opposition does not oppose these Bills and looks forward to the Government ensuring that the Australian Federal Police are provided with adequate personnel and the best possible technology to combat increasingly sophisticated crime. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(8.00) —We are debating cognately the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985 and the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985. The Australian Democrats support both Bills which are reasonable pieces of legislation, as far as they go. However, as Senator Lewis noted before dinner, essentially they only nibble at the edges of numerous problems which are currently confronting the Australian Federal Police. I make the point in passing that the associated regulations which are yet to be introduced and which, of course, are not contained in the amendments to the legislation may well create problems with internal disciplinary procedures. The office of the Federal Ombudsman has expressed concern that the application of the criminal standard of proof by the Police Disciplinary Tribunal could make it difficult to obtain convictions. An article in the Age of 18 September this year headed: `New law would help bad police, says ombudsman' states: The office of the federal ombudsman has warned that proposed changes to the law would allow `rotten apples' in the federal police to get away unscathed. The office said the changes, to the Complaints Act, would force the Police Disciplinary Tribunal to apply the criminal standard of proof before an officer could be found guilty of corruption or other offences. It continued: The Federal Government agreed to make the changes after pressure from the Federal Police Association. According to the ombudsman's office, the move would seriously limit the ability of senior police to stop corruption in the force by making it more difficult to obtain convictions. At present, the tribunal can choose what standard of proof to apply according to the particular case. In serious matters for which an officer might lose his job, the tribunal has tended to apply the criminal standard, which requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt that an officer is guilty. But in minor matters the tribunal often applies a lower, civil standard of proof under which an officer can be charged on the balance of probability. The flexible standard of proof has meant that where the tribunal cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that a serious offence has occurred, because of lack of evidence, it has been able to prosecute a lesser charge with a lower standard of proof. The article goes on at some length to quote Mr Selby. It was followed two or three days later by a letter written by Mr Hugh Selby to the Age in response to the article. He referred to the article `New law would help bad police'. He said that it is: . . . a welcome sign of interest in a matter of public importance, but it has inadvertently given a somewhat misleading picture. First, the suggested changes to the standard of proof are not in current amendments to the act . . . I made that point a moment ago. They will be achieved by new regulations. He continued: Second, my comments were carefully restricted to internal disciplinary procedures. A requirement that police appeared in a line-up- which was suggested, by the way, in the rest of the article from which I quoted- could help identification where a complaint has been made by a member of the public. However, where there is a separate investigation of alleged criminal activity a policeman must have the same rights, no more and no less, as any other member of the community. At the moment none of us can be forced to appear in a line-up. In effect, he was arguing for the continuation of the current flexible arrangement whereby the seriousness of the offence determined which standard of proof was to be used. If in its regulations the Government changes that and, in doing so, causes the higher standard of proof to be used in all cases, it should seriously reconsider doing so, or face the possibility of disallowance in the Senate. I will return to the two pieces of legislation before us and the problems confronting the police. As Senator Lewis pointed out in his speech, it is quite clear that the force is underpaid, overworked, short staffed and, in fact, quite fed up with its position. Morale is at an all-time low. In recent years, demands on the force have increased many times without a commensurate increase in resources, staffing or funding. Apart from meeting community expectations that the Australian Federal Police will be our major force against organised crime, which this Government and the previous Government constantly trumpet, members have had to be found to protect Family Court judges after the tragic events of the last few years; to service the Coastal Protection Unit for which the AFP assumed control last year; and to continue all its other responsibilities to the satisfaction of the Government, the Parliament and, presumably, also the general public. They have had to do all this, I might add, on a shoestring budget without adequate staff and resources. With that inadequate budget, inadequate staffing and limited resources, fulfilling the expectations which I just outlined is simply not possible. In recent months, the depth of feeling within the AFP has spilled into the public arena. Again as Senator Lewis mentioned before dinner, there have been some outbursts from within the Australian Capital Territory in particular. That division's police association has pointed out that some investigations are being shelved indefinitely for want of manpower. I understand that, in the main, those are associated with prosecuting and pursuing fraud. It seems rather strange that in keeping this force understaffed and underfunded we are, in effect, preventing it doing the work that will increase revenue to this country by a considerable amount. It certainly seems to be the wrong way of going about solving crime or pursuing criminals. It is estimated that some areas within the AFP are understaffed by 20 to 30 per cent. Some have shortages as high as 80 per cent below operational capacity. In May this year it was revealed that the Criminal Records Unit and the Crime Collation Unit had to close for one shift because of restrictions on overtime. So we have a part time AFP in those areas. Again, that is not a very satisfactory position in which to have our Federal Police Force. Obviously, restrictions of that sort on overtime will hamper investigations. The Federal Police officers concerned were extremely outspoken about it at the time. The Commissioner of Police in the last available annual report-1983-84-pointed out that the best technology and legal advice is available to criminals and is often well ahead of that used by or available to the law enforcement agencies. Of course, it is also true of the Australian Taxation Office officials who are constantly being outwitted by people with considerable wealth, if not actually with criminal tendencies, who are in a position to purchase the kinds of lawyers and accountants who will help them find and make use of loopholes in the law. It is even worse when the position applies to the AFP. The Commissioner stressed that the lesson to be drawn is that if law enforcement is to maintain the status quo, much less redress the balance in areas such as the use of high technology, we as a nation will have to pay. I suggest that if we are niggardly in this area it will be to our cost. The situation appears, unfortunately, to have deteriorated even further in the year or more since the Commissioner made those points. For example, I understand that it took until the end of May of this year for the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) to announce that a building had been leased as a central location for the AFP instead of the various locations it currently occupies around Canberra. Unfortunately the building, again as I understand it, will not be ready for occupation until April of next year, so until that time the AFP will have added to its other problems a scattering of its staff around Canberra. It does not make for good communications and it certainly does not make for the good operation of a force on whose somewhat limited shoulders, it would appear, rest quite considerable public and governmental expectations. Recent public statements from the Australian Capital Territory Police Association indicate again just how low morale has fallen. The pattern of resignations is revealing. Experienced police officers are leaving the force for better pay and conditions elsewhere, and just about anywhere else is offering better pay and conditions. The Public Service, the private sector and even State police forces seem to be a better home for many of these officers than their current employment with the AFP. There is no career certainty in relation to promotion and transfer and, sadly, better procedures to deal with the long-standing problem of arbitrariness in transfer and promotions have not been assessed in these Bills. Whether the Government has them on its agenda for some in the future I do not know, but certainly those problems, which are of considerable concern to men who want to make a career in this area, have not been attended to here. I could go on to detail other problems; for example, the appalling state of Federal drug squad cars, the stress associated with long hours worked by some to cover staff shortages; and the other dangers confronting members of the Australian Federal Police, some examples of which we saw in the criminal injuries compensation paper that was tabled and debated earlier this evening. Indeed, I think it speaks volumes when we read reports in the newspapers that police wives are having to set up units, organisations of their own, in order to cope with the stress placed on them due to the stress placed on their husbands within the police forces in Australia, stress which is not made any easier when the police know that their hands are tied behind their backs because they are not given the resources either in human personnel or in technology to make their fight against crime, whether petty or organised, any easier to undertake. It is hard to believe that the Government is unaware of these problems when the situation is so bad that the Australian Capital Territory Police Association actually passed a vote of no confidence in the Commissioner. The AFP has 2,470 officers and it seems clear that at least another 1,000 are needed to bring it up to scratch. Governments at the moment certainly appear loath to extend the sort of money required in that area whilst at the same time they are crying out for a more effective and more determined campaign against organised crime. I suggest that even if immediate action were taken in relation to funds and recruitment it would take some years to train the officers necessary to fill the large number of vacant specialised positions. Senator Lewis spoke earlier about not only the lack of personnel but also the misuse of those people with special skills, people who had undertaken specific training to upgrade and update their skills and who were simply not being used in the appropriate areas, presumably because there was insufficient money for the resources necessary for them to put their knowledge to good work. Senator Peter Rae —Or perhaps misdirection of effort. Senator HAINES —Indeed, or perhaps misdirection of effort. Whatever the case may be, this legislation is not going to correct it and nothing will until the Government gets its priorities in order and realises that rhetoric will not catch criminals, will not solve problems of fraud and will no improve morale. Until the Government approaches those sorts of problems we will continue to have the quite unsatisfactory situation that we have before us as far as the Australian Federal Police is concerned. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.15) —I thank honourable senators for their support of these Bills, if not for the very extended canter they have just gone through on the alleged deficiencies of the Australian Federal Police and the problems of that force, none of which, of course, are issues to which this legislation is squarely addressed. The conventions of this place are such as to allow, if not encourage, discursive debate of this kind and I will do my best in reply to address at least some of the main points that have been made by Senators Lewis and Haines. Senator Lewis suggested at the outset that the Joint Management Review had not yet been implemented. In fact, the JMR report was received in April 1984 and only five out of its 124 recommendations have not yet been implemented. Equally, Senator Lewis said that it was inappropriate for the current AFP resources review to proceed, given that the JMR report was not yet implemented. The premise for that proposition is false, as I have just indicated. In fact, the resource review is almost completed and the recommendations arising from it will be put to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) later in the year. That review will address a number of the matters which have been the subject of comment by both Senators Lewis and Haines. For example, the salary question, which is stated to be part of an alleged morale problem in the force, will be addressed in that review. Terms and conditions are being considered for presentation to the Federal Police arbitral tribunal. That is not to say that the Government accepts some of the more extravagant claims that have been made about the condition of morale in the force at the moment. In particular, so far as resignation rates are concerned, it is not accepted that there is anything remotely out of the ordinary about the present wastage situation. There is perhaps some tendency on the part of the Police Association to gild the lily just a little in relation to this matter. Although wastage rates are very closely monitored there has been simply no increase evident in recent times over the situation which prevailed previously. Senator Haines —Maybe that just means that it was awful previously. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is perhaps an interesting point for Senator Haines to make. One of the very interesting contrasts to draw is that between the very extended effort that has gone into resource analysis and review by the present Government and the effort of the previous Government which, when it established the Australian Federal Police in 1979, went about it without any analysis at all of the resource needs of the force of a kind that has been involved in both the review exercises to which I have recently referred. The contrast is stark. It is obvious and it does no credit to critics like Senator Lewis to ignore that state of affairs. More general swipes have been administered at the general operation of policing in the Australian Capital Territory. It has been suggested that the force was under strength, that service was poor and that the kind of priorities set for the force were erratic. I make the point in response to at least some of these criticisms that since the AFP was created in 1979 there has been a 15 per cent increase in the resources made available for Australian Capital Territory policing as compared with a population increase over that period of only 13 per cent. To that extent the resource allocation has more than kept pace with the changes in the population base. To the extent that priorities and policing are always a subject of controversy, I simply remind the Senate that the ministerial priorities tabled recently by the Special Minister of State require the maintenance of present levels of service. The way in which resources are deployed from day to day and week to week is a matter for the Commissioner on the basis of the operational requirements as they exist from time to time. In regard to the question raised by Senator Haines about the Criminal Records Unit, I simply refer her to a very extensive answer which I recall making some months ago on behalf of the Special Minister of State when this question was raised in the Senate. Senator Lewis spent some time on the old chestnut of the World Cup Athletics. He asked whether the proposed cost recovery for police service equals the double dipping which allegedly is involved in police accounts this year; whether members were paid overtime or given leave in lieu; what other functions suffered-to use his words-as a result of the World Cup exercise. I again respond by making the point that recovery sought from the World Cup organisers of costs directly attributable to security at the Games amounts to some quarter of a million dollars. No double dipping has been involved because the costs of this have been included in AFP estimates on the basis of a refund being forthcoming. The Government believes, as does the police force, that the overtime rates paid were appropriate, with time off in lieu being not an appropriate option in all the circumstances. Adequate staffing levels were maintained for the proper performance of other functions as determined by the commander of the force for the ACT during the period in question. With regard to an alleged cutback in funds, police dissatisfaction at AFP resource allocation, allegations about 50 per cent of AFP motor vehicles being clapped out, allegations about tasks being increased for which resources are not available or skilled resources being used for unskilled tasks, again I simply say this: The AFP 1985-86 budget did involve an increase for the AFP of 8.72 per cent, which includes $1.8m as the first instalment of a government commitment to recruit a stronger force and a commitment which will involve the expenditure of about $10m over a three-year period. Motor vehicles in the Australian Capital Territory have been replaced on a time-kilometre basis to ensure a high standard, and a replacement program has been developed in consultation with the AFP Association. The implementation of the JMR recommendations provides that police skills are allocated where essential, with other duties being performed by Public Service support staff. Ministerial priorities, which are spelt out under the AFP charter, require resource deployment to major criminal activities. That is what has been occurring. Without spending a lot of time on it, it is the case that each separate point that has been made in the course of this short but wide-ranging debate can be answered. That is even true of the very last point on my list in relation to police dogs. Senator Lewis said that special provision was necessary in this regard. The Minister, I am sure, is acutely aware of the situation in respect of arguments about police dogs and is considering options. After such a reply, who could possibly oppose the terms of this legislation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the points that I have been making? Equally, it has nothing to do with the points that were made by Senator Lewis and Senator Haines. One remaining point made by Senator Haines concerned the standard of proof in disciplinary cases. Again, as fascinating as this subject is, it is not one that is brought to our attention by the terms of this legislation. These matters are addressed in regulations that are yet to be made and they will go to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances in the usual way, so there will be ample further opportunities to debate that fascinating subject, on which I will have a great deal more to say than I have had to say tonight about police dogs and clapped out cars. I do thank Senator Haines nonetheless for her contribution to this debate, as I thank Senator Lewis, and I commend the Bills to the House for a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time. The Bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.25) —I repeat to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) the questions that I asked in the course of my speech in the second reading debate. There was a lack of road patrols in the Australian Capital Territory during the World Cup Athletics. What were the cost recoveries? In what way does the Government see that the people of the Australian Capital Territory were receiving a fair deal in this arrangement? Were police actually paid overtime for long hours, or were they simply told to take time off in lieu? What other normal functions suffered as a result? While the Minister gets his instructions, let me point out that if the Government keeps the numbers in the police force in the Australian Capital Territory down, yet expects them to undertake this sort of work, the people of the Australian Capital Territory can rightly claim that their police force is being used for special purposes of the Government and that they are entitled to receive some other service. That, undoubtedly, means that police will have to be paid overtime or additional police will have to be brought in from elsewhere. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.26) —I believed that I had covered in my second reading reply the territory which Senator Lewis has just covered. But let me add to what I said. I am advised that there may have been some fewer police on the road during the World Cup period flowing as a necessary corollary from the fact that about 200 police were present at the stadium. To that extent it was not possible to maintain patrols at the same level of intensity as is normal. But that is a policing deployment priority question, opinions about which, I suppose, can reasonably differ. The view taken by the Australian Capital Territory Commissioner of Police was that that was an appropriate staffing deployment and did not seriously or in any way unconscionably deplete the protection properly available to ordinary citizens of the Australian Capital Territory not involved in the contest. As to the cost recovery question, I have indicated the order of magnitude of costs that are directly attributable to the security of the Games-about $250,000. Cost recovery of that order of magnitude has been sought from the Games organisers, but no reply has yet been received in relation to that approach. As I indicated in my reply to the second reading debate, police were paid overtime for their involvement in the Games, with the question of time off in lieu not being seen as an appropriate or an available option. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(8.28) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for the information. I did not quite understand what the Minister was saying. I appreciate that police are paid some overtime, but the question really is whether the amount of overtime being paid to the police is equal to the amount of cost recovery. If it is not, the people of the Australian Capital Territory are being deprived of the services of their police for the benefit of some function which the Government wants to conduct for its own purposes, political or otherwise. I also mentioned to the Minister the question of police vehicles. The information which I understand was passed to us was that it is alleged that 50 per cent of police vehicles are in a condition which would render them unlikely to pass the current road worthiness tests being imposed on private vehicles in the Australian Capital Territory. I then asked the Minister whether he would indicate either that this is not so or that the Government is taking some action to ensure that the police in the Australian Capital Territory are provided with vehicles which are adequate to carry out the tasks that they are required to do. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(8.30) —In response to the question about the vehicles, I am advised that they are replaced on a kilometreage or mileage-a more familiar term-basis and that this particular replacement regime has been worked out in consultation with the Australian Federal Police Association. There is a replacement program in place and the replacement is occurring according to that. The cost recovery that has been sought bears a direct equivalent to the amount of overtime that was paid and that is the primary component, if not the complete component, in the costs that are, in fact, presently being sought. There may be further bits and pieces that it is possible for me to supply in answer to Senator Lewis's questions and I would be happy to do so in Question Time or on notice. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.34) —The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1985 relates to superannuation deductions for self-employed people. This Bill reminds me of a situation which really developed as a result of the 1980 Budget. Prior to that Budget self-employed persons in Australia-and in the main, of course, they were hundreds of thousands of small business men and women-had no superannuation cover at all. As a result of the Government's initiatives at that time this was provided. I am reminded that in 1980 when the Fraser Government introduced that proposal Mr Howard was the Treasurer and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, said these words about the proposal: How does the Government-- and of course, that was the Fraser Government- justify this generous but regressive handout to the high income, self-employed professional in the heartland of the tax avoidance industry compared with the moderate income, self-employed skilled tradesman and farmer? It is a rort for high income earners. All your bankrollers will be making a fortune out of it. Then he said: It is a rort for high income earners, a rort for your people. That was said, of course, by the Leader of the Opposition in those days, Mr Hayden, who is now the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The interesting thing is that this legislation-and I guess there is an irony involved in this-increases by 25 per cent what the Leader of the Opposition in those days described as a rort. It seems to me that this demonstrates how embarrassing it may be for members of the Australian Labor Party continually to use this kind of description, of rort, tax dodge and so on, to describe schemes which are quite properly available to people when in fact not only are they properly available but also history has resulted in a situation in which the Government, a Labor Government, is increasing those benefits. Of all people I would think that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) may well recognise the merit in members of the Labor Party having a degree of constraint in the language they use to describe this kind of activity when in fact they, having described this scheme as a rort, are now increasing the benefit by 25 per cent. I simply suggest that this is one of those dramatic examples of the use of the smear, the innuendo and the quick dismissal of positions maintained by members of the coalition parties on this side of the chamber whenever they discuss the matter of tax-the sorts of smears and innuendos that seem particularly to emanate from the present Minister for Finance-being totally inappropriate. This is one of the reasons I introduced my comments on this legislation by saying that this kind of thing was described by the Minister's Party as a rort and yet the merit of the porposition is such that it is now being increased by 25 per cent. In other words, it underlines the soundness of the point made by the Treasurer at that time in 1980-Mr Howard-that in fact this was a sensible and proper course to pursue. This legislation also gives us the opportunity of discussing the general question of tax reform. I regret to say that the results that have emerged from the Taxation Summit and from the immense discussion in the community about attempts to reform the tax system have not been anything like the expectations that were created. There is no doubt that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had immense support, particularly I might say from the Opposition, for his view that there should be a major reform of the tax system, particularly in the direction of indirect tax. There was no doubt about that and no suggestion to the contrary. The Opposition took the view that in fact there should be an extension of indirect tax, not only to the extent that there should be an increase in indirect tax; in fact at the last election the Opposition parties went to the people with the stated policy that there should be an increase in the proportion of tax raised by indirect tax and that there should be an offsetting reduction in personal income tax. There is nothing new, exciting or exceptional about that proposal. In fact, it remains the Opposition's policy. The only concern that the Opposition has about this matter is that the Treasurer created an incredible level of expectation which he was incapable of fulfilling because, of course, he was violently opposed by people such as the Minister for Finance, who was the representative of one of the cliques, the groups or factions of the Labor Party which opposed the Treasurer's quite sensible attempts to move in the direction of implementing the policies of the Liberal Party of Australia. The Labor Party has undertaken many areas of Liberal Party policy. I am reminded, for example, of the introduction of foreign banks into Australia and how, when the then Treasurer announced it in early 1983, the Labor Party took the view that this was a disgraceful and inappropriate method of improving the banking system in Australia. There were violent and offensive suggestions that the Treasurer at that stage was placating the foreign interests who had an undue influence, it was alleged, on the coalition parties. The reality was, of course, that applications were called in January 1983 for foreign banks to enter Australia. Those applications were due to be returned by May 1983. I remind the Government that it cancelled that call for applications because, in fact, it fitted with its policy not to pursue that course of action. Its platform, its hyperbole and the nonsense spoken in this and the other chamber about the entry of foreign banks was such that it opposed strongly any suggestion that foreign banks should come to Australia. It was alleged that the entry of foreign banks to Australia would increase the costs of borrowing and do all sorts of incredible things. It was alleged that if you were thin it would make you fat and that if you were fat it would give you cancer. The most unbelievable remarks were made about the consequences of foreign bank entry into Australia. Yet, having cancelled the previous Government's invitation to up to 10 foreign banks to come to Australia, the present Treasurer is now claiming the credit for having invited and admitted foreign banks into Australia. Apart from being hypocritical, this seems to me to underline the fact that there is great danger in an opposition being opportunistic and opposing matters introduced by a government simply for the sake of opposing them. That is why the present Opposition does not follow that course. It disappoints me, however, that the present Government followed that kind of course when in opposition. It accused the previous Government-I refer here to the superannuation arrangement-of responding simply to the demands of its bankrollers, of simply seeking to bring benefit to those people who were rich or somehow had the opportunity to earn profits. The then Opposition's attitude was so hostile to those people that it attacked the then Government for having introduced a superannuation scheme which allowed small business people, self-employed people, to participate in superannuation. On this occasion I am simply outlining to the Government that some people on the Government benches always seek to find an offensive motive behind everything that is done by people on this side, or they always suggest that there must be something sinister behind the rewarding of enterprise or the acceptance that profit is not a dirty word. It seems to be that the Government's legislation embraces many of the attitudes that we embraced and that the people who attacked those propositions are now in an embarrassing and impossible moral situation. I include among those people the Minister for Finance, who seems to find it very difficult to discuss any issue in terms of the merit of the proposition involved but who insists on discussing all matters on the basis of personality and verbal abuse. It seems to me that the Senate is not an appropriate chamber for that kind of behaviour. It may be appropriate elsewhere. Our duty is to review legislation and to look at the merits of the issues. If Senator Walsh can find in his conscience that he has the capacity to discuss the issues I would be interested to hear his discussion of the issues. But if all he can find is the capacity to be insulting on a personal level I believe-- Senator Walsh —I'll draw attention to your scungy personal history. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is an example of exactly what I was talking about. Senator Walsh finds it very difficult indeed to discuss any issue on its merits. He is only capable of pursuing personal abuse. I do not think that the tax issue should be discussed on that level. It seems to me that many serious issues are involved in the whole question of tax and I hope that the Senate would like to discuss them. So many of the present arrangements that the Government is introducing-this is not one of them-seem to discriminate against the private sector to the advantage of the public sector. I am very concerned indeed about the way in which the present Government is approaching the general question of taxation and superannuation. I have noticed, for example, that when this was discussed in the House of Representatives one member took the view that the only issue that should be raised was the question of the Raymor superannuation case. That did not seem to me to advance the general question of what is the appropriate, sensible and proper way to discuss the entitlements of small business people, people who do not belong to corporate superannuation funds, to prepare for their old age. On the question of the Government's approach to fringe benefits and tax in general, I am concerned-no doubt there will be other opportunities to discuss this-that the whole debate appears to have been diverted from the reality. The reality is that under the deal done with the Australian Council of Trade Unions the present Federal Government has, in fact, agreed to provide $2 billion in tax cuts in about September of next year. That $2 billion is not, in fact, a tax cut; it is simply a reduction in the rate of increase of taxation revenue. That $2 billion is a very important figure because it was quite wrongly and improperly suggested to the media by the present Government to be part of the tax package that was presented recently. It was suggested that the $800m in tax raising which was announced in that group of nasties called option A would be offset largely by the $2 billion of tax relief which would be given in September of next year. That is absolutely and totally phoney. Those newspapers that ran the story that a person would still end up $7 a head better off as a result of these tax changes were succoured, I believe, by a most effective Government public relations campaign. The reality is that the $2 billion in tax cuts will be totally offset by the 2 per cent discounting for indexation that will emerge in April next year as a result of the Goverment's belated decision to allow imports to be discounted against indexation. Of course, that will not occur until April next year. The ACTU, the Government will remember, demanded of the Government that it not proceed with its Budget time promise fully to discount the impact of devaluation on wage rises. There was an absolute need for that to take place. The Treasury insisted on the need for it to take place; the Reserve Bank of Australia insisted on the need for that discounting to take place. In fact, the business community also said that a failure to do so would destroy confidence in the Government's management of the economy. There is no doubt that it was essential that the full discounting of the import rise-the cost of living factor consequential upon the increase in import prices that emerged from the devaluation-not be carried on in wages. It was simply that we were living beyond our means to such an extent that we had to have the biggest devaluation in Australia's history. Having lived beyond our means in that way, the Government having recognised that, having said that one way to correct that would be to discount the impact of devaluation on subsequent wage cases and having argued its case at Budget time very well-I thought that the Treasurer, Mr Keating, put a very strong case for full discounting-a fortnight later the ACTU imposed its will on the Government and required the Government to change that situation. The ACTU required the Government to do that and the Government, naturally, acquiesced, as usual, in the ACTU's demand. The result is that in the current wage case presently before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the Government is not seeking any kind of concession for the one per cent or so of the indexation element that emerges from import costs arising out of devaluation. Not only is it not seeking that, but it has agreed that the 2 per cent discount that will take place in April will be totally offset by a $2 billion cut in taxes. In other words, not only will real wages not be affected in any way by the fact that we were living about 20 per cent beyond our means, but the rest of the community will have to pay for that decision. The rest of the community is being asked to pay through the $2 billion in tax cuts. We found out a couple of weeks ago that $800m of that cost is to be met largely by the business community, by small business and by farmers who have to pay that sum to pay off the deal done between the Labor Party and the ACTU for next year's tax cut which offsets next year's indexation discount. The community is paying to protect the ACTU because the ACTU told the Government that that was what it wanted. What concerns me immensely is that the Government's public relations campaign quite falsely presented the impression that the tax package involves tax increases on the one hand which are massively offset by tax cuts on the other without any suggestion of the reality of the April 2 per cent discounting for devaluation. We now know who will pay the bill for the deal the Government did with the ACTU. That deal is to be paid for by the rural sector through a range of offensive actions against it. The deal is to be paid for certainly by the hotel and restaurant industry, which is speaking very effectively for itself. It is to be paid for by the community as a whole, in effect as a result of these measures that have been introduced. I remind the Senate that these measures that we called option A were no more than the bribe that the Treasurer offered to the union movement in order to get option C accepted. Now we have lost option C. The Treasurer could not stand up to the pressure from the union movement. Option C, as honourable senators will remember, was a broadly based indirerct tax. Having said we would have to pay indirect tax-that we would not have real tax reform unless there were a broad based indirect tax-the Treasurer gave way because he was pressured by his own Prime Minister, who stabbed him in the back. It seems to me that we must now put up with the bribe which was option A without getting option C. Option C was the arrangement that really was to reduce our personal income tax. It was to bring some real benefit to income tax payers who, quite properly, were complaining that they were being pushed into tax brackets that were far too high. So we are left with the bribe without getting the benefit. Let us have a slight look at what the consequences of this will be. Here is the Government, by a series of actions under option A, pushing the business community and workers into a situation where the cash economy will become bigger and bigger. Because they cannot do some of the many things which have become customary in the past, they will now be obliged, if they want to benefit people, to make things more and more for cash. I will remind the Senate that while a business lunch is now no longer deductible, a bribe still is. A bribe is deductible if it is necessary for the earning of income. This Government is quite happy to see bribes being deductible against income, but not a genuine business expense involved, for example, in a lunch. In order to placate the ACTU the Government is quite happy to destroy the consequences of the very intelligent and well-worked-out motor vehicle scheme introduced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate last year. When one looks at the consequences of the Government's failure to introduce a broadly based tax and then its determination to proceed with the bribe nonetheless, one sees that many ordinary Australians will be forced into a situation where they are tax cheats. I have spoken to people who are normal, proper, reasonable, decent Australians. They are not rich; they are not the large people who seem to be always the butt of criticisms by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. They are decent hardworking Australians who say: `For heaven's sake, this has gone too far. The Government has gone right off'. They say: `Very well, we will simply go into barter systems'. A restaurant owner, for example, will have the local butcher to dinner and have, say, a $100 dinner with his wife or associates. That $100 will be cut out when the restaurant owner then goes to the butcher and buys his meat. I think that any tax system which pushes ordinary decent Australians into becoming tax cheats is a lousy system. I am most concerned indeed about the way the Government has gone about pushing people into that kind of situation. It seems to me that there are better ways for the Government if it is genuine, to look at the sorts of problems that have emerged in this area. If the business lunch has become too great a rort, why not put a ceiling on it? Why wipe it out altogether? I remind the Government that there are genuine business lunches and genuine seminars. The inadequate dividing line, which is obviously unable to be drawn by the Government, judging by the inadequate responses from the Government Ministers in this place to questions on this score, clearly creates an atmosphere of uncertainty in the law. One of the vital things about tax law is that we must have certainty before it if we are going to have a good tax law. I regret to say that I do not believe that the Government knows what it is doing. It was appalling to hear, for example, the Leader of the Government in this place admit here last week that there had been no adequate study of the consequences on the motor industry, for example, of the Government's decisions in relation to motor transport and the extent to which it could be tax deductible. The Government had not done, if the Minister was right, any kind of adequate study on the consequences for motor vehicle sales or for employment in the motor industry of its changed arrangements. Yet the Government, of all people, ought to know how sensitive that industry is to any impacts external-in particular tax-on that industry. There is no doubt that Senator Button, having spent a great deal of time coming up with what I believe to be a first rate motor vehicle industry plan, is now seeing that plan sabotaged by his own Treasurer. I do not know to what extent the motor industry will be able to overcome this situation. I do not know how many people will be sacked. There was a suggestion by one of the automotive associations that there will be massive sackings and an enormous fall in motor vehicle registrations next year. I do not know how accurate that is, but neither does the Government, and that is the appalling situation. The Government has no idea of the consequences of its actions. It is almost criminally irresponsible. Its only intention, its only concern, was to raise money without giving a damn for the industry, the employment and the consequences on the Australian economy of what it was setting out to do. There have been announcements in the papers in recent days too about the impact on the entertainment industry. It seems to me that rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water all this Government had to do was to set a series of reasonable limits. But, of course, that would have suggested that it had a concern for the industries involved, and it did not. Its total concern was the raising of revenue. I would like to conclude by making this point. I do hope that the Government, in discussing tax measures, will in fact find itself capable of discussing them in terms of the merit of the measures themselves rather than questions of personality and rather than saying that anyone who supports private enterprise is in fact supporting tax cheats. The reality is that there is a very difficult dividing line between the proper deduction and those people who are misusing those deductions. I hope that the Government approaches this with a fair recognition of the reality that there are genuine and proper deductions in the business community. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria)(9.04) —We are debating the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1985. In other words, in plain English we are debating yet again the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments. This Bill has a long and painful history. Since 1915 superannuation lump sum payments have been taxed very lightly. Then this Government decided to introduce a quite heavy tax on lump sum superannuation payments. I was not in the Senate at the time that legislation was introduced, so I will not comment on the virtues or otherwise of the Government's initiative in taxing lump sum superannuation payments, except to say that I imagine that its motivation was very largely the desire to raise additional revenue. No doubt the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, was congratulated by his colleagues when he dreamt up this method of raising quite enormous amounts of revenue. We are debating this taxation of lump sum superannuation payments yet again because in the original legislation that was introduced by the Government there were very significant loop-holes. It did not take those smart operators who were expert in methods of dodging taxation long to discover these loopholes. Consequently, the original legislation was virtually useless. Lump sum superannuation payments were effectively not taxed. So at this time we are yet again debating amendments to the legislation that have been necessary because of the inadequacy of the Government's drafting in the first place. Senator Michael Baume did not make clear whether the Opposition proposes to move any amendments. I and the other Australian Democrats will be listening very carefully to Senator Messner, who I understand will be speaking after me on this piece of legislation, to see whether the Opposition proposes to move any amendments to this legislation. I can only say that the Government's attitude on superannuation generally, as displayed by Senator Walsh's attitude to the Government superannuation Bill last week, does not fill us with any confidence about what the Government may or may not do about superannuation from here on in. We will be looking at the situation very carefully. That is all I can say at this stage. It is a pity that the Senate cannot be used as a House of review, as it should be used, and that we are debating this legislation today. It has suddenly come on for debate and we have to debate it. Admittedly, the legislation has lain on the table for some time, but the debate was suddenly brought on. I try repeatedly to get in touch with Senator Walsh to get the Government's view on these sorts of important pieces of legislation. I find him an extraordinarily difficult senator to contact. My phone calls are very seldom answered. It is very difficult to find out precisely what is the Government's intention and to discuss with the Government what we consider could be legitimate weaknesses in the legislation. Having said that, I move on to superannuation generally. It is probably the most important area of government initiative that could be imagined. The Democrats have long supported superannuation. We believe that meaningful superannuation should be extended to all workers. It is an iniquitous situation that only a very small percentage of the work force today enjoys superannuation. This means, that those who do not enjoy the benefits of superannuation are essentially supporting, through the taxation system, those who do have superannuation. It is a pity that less than 10 per cent of Australians own shares in Australian industry. The wealth of this country is very unevenly divided. Superannuation could be used as a means for salary and wage earners to be encouraged to save and to mobilise the resources of those savings towards the development of the country in general. Workers could benefit very substantially from the growth and development of this country's wealth through investment of the funds of superannuation. Anybody who doubts the need for encouraging saving in this country should look at the example of Japan. The savings there are much higher than those of any other country in the whole of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These savings have resulted in higher levels of capital formation and growth in that country. The same could be done in Australia. Australia has to reduce its overseas debt and develop new industries and this can be done only by an effective means of saving, of which superannuation could be the vehicle. The Democrats would be in favour of a national superannuation scheme. The Government announced very hurriedly, as a result of its negotiations at the eleventh hour, in order to rescue the accord, that it perhaps would support a national superannuation scheme. However, over recent months the record of the Government in this area has been so abysmal that we wonder whether the package the Government may come up with on a national superannuation scheme-if it comes up with such a package-will be worth while. Last week we had to consider the aims of superannuation and we found that the Government cynically was prepared to use the superannuation fund of the Public Service-the largest superannuation fund of the Public Service; the largest superannuation fund in this country-to increase the power and the influence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government wished to hand over control of the largest superannuation fund in this country to the ACTU, presumably as a pay-off in some way or other. Senator Mason —Certainly for sinister reasons; I think we would agree on that. Senator SIDDONS —I can only say that this cynical exercise by the Government was stopped in its tracks by the Democrats. We proposed, very simply, that the control over Government superannuation funds should be given to those who contribute to these funds, the policy holders. What did the Government do? It cynically said: `No way. We give the control of those funds to the ACTU or you will have to go back to the situation that applies at the moment, which is a totally unsatisfactory method of investing those funds'. The Government has lumbered the Public Service with an unworkable management method over its superannuation funds because the Government was not prepared to say that a properly, carefully organised election of the trustees of those funds should be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. For this reason the Democrats can have very little confidence in Government initiatives in the superannuation area. We wait with a great deal of expectation to hear what the Opposition intends to do about this legislation. Does it intend to join the Government and pass it or does it intend to move some amendments? We believe that the legislation before us is extremely complex. It is being debated in the Senate at this hour before many honourable senators have had an opportunity to consider and discuss it in detail. Is the Senate to be a House of review or is it not? Are we to be suddenly confronted with an important piece of legislation such as this, the taxing of lump sum superannuation? Are we to be lumbered with this sort of legislation suddenly and unexpectedly and be required to vote for it? If the Government's mentality is carried over to the proposed national superannuation scheme I can only say that the future in this area is very bleak indeed. We believe that Australians should be given a greater slice of the economic action in this country and they could be given an opportunity to invest in its industry and development if the Government constructively and realistically discussed the future of superannuation. Surely in doing that one must discuss who is to control these enormous amounts of money, who is to control the funds, who are the people who will be responsible for investing those funds in the future of Australia and in the future of Australian industry? How are those trustees, those important people, to be elected? So far the Government has not faced up to the critical, fundamental problem which is as important as: Who ought to govern? Who ought to control the future development of Australian industries? Superannuation bears essentially on that problem. The Government should face up to the realities of the situation, face up to the fact that if an organisation, any organisation, gets control of the superannuation funds, both public and private, in this country it will control the country. It can say whether or not an industry is to survive. It can withdraw its support of an industry and cause it to go to the wall overnight. So there is no more important issue than this. I am very much afraid that the Government has not faced up to the real issues. Certainly Senator Walsh has not considered them important enough to discuss with the Democrats. Instead, he chooses to slam these sorts of pieces of legislation into the Senate and expects the Democrats meekly to go along with him and to say: `Yes, we will support you, Senator Walsh'. That is not good enough. We are talking about fundamental issues. The sooner the Government is prepared to discuss and consider reasonable amendments the sooner we will get these important questions in this country resolved. Debate (on motion by Senator Sheil) adjourned. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(9.18) —The National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill 1985 relates to the restructuring of the National Capital Development Commission which is, in effect, the town planning body of the Australian Capital Territory and a construction body of considerable size. The legislation arises out of the report of the Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission which was chaired by Mr George M. White. The Committee reported to the then Minister, Mr Tom Uren, on 6 July 1983, following a reference by the then Minister for the Capital Territory, the Hon. Michael Hodgman, made on 27 July 1982. I must admit to having some difficulty about the report because in the terms of reference, part of which are set out in the report of the Committee of Review, it is stated that the objectives of the Government's review were `to seek to eliminate unnecessary regulation, to reduce the scope and amount of public-sector activity and to transfer financial and operational responsibility to the private sector as much as is practicable or feasible'. Those words are contained in the general introduction to the report. To my way of thinking, the problem is that the report in no way carries out those objectives. It will be appreciated that there was a change of government between the time of the reference and the time of the report. It seems to me that this is a report of a committee which one might imagine would have been set up by the present Government because, rather than reporting on means of eliminating unnecessary regulation, reducing the scope and amount of public sector activity and transferring financial and operational responsibility to the private sector, it in fact does the very reverse. I am at a complete loss to understand that because I freely acknowledge that in the introduction to the report the Committee has some four paragraphs of some sort of explanation about the discussions which it had with the Hon. Michael Hodgman during the course of the inquiry. In some way or other, these discussions seem to have been used by the Committee to explain why it did not really carry out the terms of the original reference but got itself involved in some other examination and why the government of the day-that was the then Liberal-National Party Government-had taken certain decisions with regard to the sale of land. I do not see why the Committee should have drawn any conclusion from that but apparently committees of review believe that they can have a chat with a Minister and sort out things on the side instead of carrying out the terms that they were required to carry out. In any event, as I say, I find the report of the Committee set up by the former Liberal-National Party Government a grave disappointment. I would like to refer to the structure of the National Capital Development Commission. It will be recalled that the Commission was established many years ago by the Menzies Government as a corporation sole-in other words, one person being fully responsible for the development of the Australian Capital Territory. If my memory serves me correctly, I think three commissioners have carried out that role over a period of just on 25 years or thereabouts. One would have to say that they have done an excellent job. A corporation sole is, of course, a dictatorship and a benevolent dictatorship is probably the best form of government for getting things done. That was exactly what Canberra needed when this body was originally established-a body for getting things done. To the credit of the various commissioners, this is what has happened. I think both the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the people of Australia who visit this very fine city are satisfied with the result. It appears that there have been some concerns that as the population of Canberra has grown the people of Canberra have not been able to persuade the Commission to take steps which certain sections of the community want the Commissioner to take. So there have been complaints about the activities of the NCDC. All I can say about that is that this town knows how to set up lobby groups better than any town I know anywhere in Australia. In my little country town of Warrnambool it takes a while for people to get themselves worked up and to take some action. In this town people can get themselves worked up within 24 hours. They are able to lobby a Federal Minister the very night that they establish a committee. If the Federal Minister does not listen to them they will call a public meeting to which he will be publicly invited to attend. The other day one organisation even went to the extent of placing an advertisement in a newspaper inviting certain members of parliament to attend a public meeting. As I said, this really is, without doubt, the most organised town with regard to lobbying. In my view it is complete nonsense for the people of the Australian Capital Territory to complain that they have been unable to influence the National Capital Development Commission. Of course they have been able to influence the Commission, and to influence it very substantially. I hope the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will listen to what I have to say about the area called Civic. If Canberra is ever going to have a city centre it is about time the area was called the city instead of Civic which was the name adopted when Canberra was being established. An area just adjoining Civic contains some buildings of no architectural merit whatsoever which were built in the 1950s. The NCDC wanted to pull down those buildings and erect buildings which were much more apposite for the development of the area. But what happened? As a result of some lobbying, this is not going to happen. Another area of the city was proposed for redevelopment which included the construction of shops and offices. However, the 25 occupants of the particular street suggested for redevelopment took up a petition and objected to the relevant Minister and the NCDC. As a result, the development is not taking place. The people of this town are well able to frustrate, for reasons of their own, the logical development which ought to take place in Canberra. As I say, in my view it is complete nonsense to suggest that the whole of the NCDC corporation sole arrangements should be altered purely and simply because it is apparently not representative of the people of the Australian Capital Territory or is not listening to what the people of the Australian Capital Territory want. I might say that I understand the complaints of members of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly because, from what I have been told, their representations to the NCDC have been treated as though they were the complaints of ordinary citizens. Of course, members of the House of Assembly have been elected to represent the people of the Australian Capital Territory in some way. I know that there are difficulties in respect of the House of Assembly. I know that the Assembly has had its term of office extended. However, members of the House of Assembly have faced an election. They have been elected and, in my view, representations which were made by them to the NCDC should have been given much more credit by the Commission that representations which are made by some lobby group which has a particular row to hoe. Having made those preliminary remarks, let me now turn to the Bill and the report. The White report recommended that instead of having a sole corporation the solution to this problem would be to have a commission of five made up of one executive member and four part time members of whom one would be the Chairman. The Government has not accepted that recommendation; it is proposing to have a commission of seven. In my view I would have thought the White report would have produced a camel, but the Government's proposal to have a commission of seven will produce a goat. I draw attention to an authority which is currently having difficulty. The Australian Bicentennial Authority has a committee of 17 and, being one of those 17, I assure the Senate that, if we really want to achieve an active body able to do things successfully, the smaller the body the better. If I had been the Minister responsible I would certainly not have been moving to have a commission of seven; if necessary I might have been recommending to my Party a commission of three. But the Government is not satisfied with the recommendation of five; it is proposing to set up a commission of seven. I do not see that that will, to use the words of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), make the Commission more responsible and accountable to the different interests it serves. The Government needs to think about that. How can having seven people trying to run the show make the Commission more responsible and accountable to the different interests it serves? If the Government appoints a unionist to the Commission, will he represent the unions' interests on the Commission? If the Government appoints a businessman, will he represent business interests on the Commission? When politicians talk about that, it is an absolute nonsense. When one is on an authority one's responsibility is to the authority. One cannot take on to an authority a responsibility to serve someone else's interests. So one easily finds oneself in a position of trying to wear two hats. If the Commission is to take some action which it believes is in the best interests of the Australian Capital Territory but which is contrary to the interests a member believes he represents, how does that member vote on that matter? One's obligation as a member of an authority is to vote in the interests of the authority, not in the interests of those who put him on the authority. That is why this sort of representational capacity on government statutory authorities is a nonsense, and has repeatedly been shown to be a nonsense in reports to the Senate. I draw the Minister's attention to the September 1981 report from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the Australian Dairy Corporation and its Asian subsidiaries. We looked at the Australian Dairy Corporation and Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, and laid down in black and white for the benefit of all future Ministers the problems created by statutory authorities made up of representative bodies. There are seven reports of that Committee on statutory authorities alone. Time after time that Committee unanimously reported-it was not just the view of the Liberal or National Party members, but of the Australian Labor Party members on the Committee, including a current Minister, Senator Walsh-on the impossible problems created by this sort of representational body. As I said, and in any event, if I had been the Minister I would have been considering a much smaller Commission. Nevertheless, it is the Government's policy and we have to accept that this is what Mr Scholes wants and what the Government wants. So be it. However, the legislation makes no attempt to take up the recommendation of the White Committee that two members of the commission of five-the Senate will recall that the report recommended five-should be representatives of the local community nominated by the House of Assembly by a two-thirds majority. The Opposition believes that that Commission should have some representation from the local community so that it can be seen to be `more responsive'. We equate representation of two out of five, as recommended by the White Committee, with a representation of three out of the seven proposed by the Government. Accordingly, I will propose an amendment to the legislation which will require that three of the part time members of the Commission be people recommended by a two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly. As I have indicated, this legislation neatly brings before the Parliament the question of resolution of conflicts between a government and a statutory authority. Statutory authorities are created by Acts of Parliament, not by governments. They are created in order to give a body a degree of independence from the Government, otherwise there would be no need to create a statutory authority; the body could simply form part of the Minister's department. A statutory authority has to have a degree of independence. It is created by the Parliament, not by the Government, and yet there must be responsibility back to the Government. As has been indicated in the reports of the Senate Committee to which I have already referred, governments need to have a power of direction over authorities in regard to policy matters. That was the unanimous view of those Senate Committee reports. In particular I refer to chapter 6 of the fifth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in regard to statutory authorities. It is also interesting to note that the Australian Labor Party agrees with this matter in general. I refer the Minister to a statement in relation to ministerial direction at page 210 of the paper entitled `Labor and Quality of Government', dated 9 February 1983. The White Committee also agreed that the Minister should have a power of direction and so recommended in paragraph 5.36 of the report. The White Committee recommended that the power of direction should be along the lines described as the Commonwealth Bank model which required that: A direction from the Government to the Bank must be in writing; it must be tabled in Parliament within a set number of days; and the Bank then has the right to table its views on the issue. The Opposition accepts and agrees with the recommendation of the White Committee, which follows the conclusions to paragraph 6 of the fifth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In that report the Senate Committee recommended: . . . where a formal direction is given pursuant to the enabling clause the Minister should be required to table the direction in the Parliament within six sitting days of its being made. If direction should not be disclosed within this time for reasons of national interest or commercial confidentiality, they should be tabled as soon as possible together with an explanation of why the tabling was with-held and at the latest included in the following annual report. We believe that provisions of this nature are essential in a body such as the National Capital Development Commission and accordingly, at the appropriate item, we will move amendments to that effect. Similarly, we believe that there should be no question that the Minister has any power to influence commissioners by their terms of appointment. Accordingly, we are of the view that the terms and conditions of appointment of members of the Commission should be approved by the Public Service Board, or if not so approved the terms and conditions should be tabled in Parliament. At the appropriate time I will move an amendment to that effect. The White Committee recommended a regular process of review of the Commission's performance every 10 years. We accept that recommendation. We believe that the best way of doing so would be by introducing a sunset clause terminating the Commission at the end of 10 years, unless its performance has been reviewed and it is seen to be performing an essential function. The best way for the Parliament to be able to review any such body is to have a sunset clause which terminates the body and forces the Government to bring back into the Parliament legislation to extend the life of the body. This gives the Parliament an opportunity to examine the performance of the body. The White Committee also recommends that an executive member be appointed for a term of up to five years and that the other two members be appointed by the Minister for three-year terms. At the outset, it would be desirable to make appointments for different durations so that terminations would be staggered to minimise discontinuity in the deliberations of the restructured Commission. The amendment Bill appoints a full time member for such period not exceeding seven years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment of a member and a part time member for such period not exceeding three years. It seems to us that the seven-year term for a full time member is far too long and, accordingly, we propose to bring in an amendment to the legislation for full time members to hold office for such period not exceeding five years, as is specified in the instrument of appointment of the member. That would enable the Minister when he makes these appointments, by specifying the period, to overcome the problems of discontinuity in the deliberations of the restructured Commission. The Minister in his second reading speech stated that the Bill has no financial impact. The appointment of additional commissioners clearly has financial impact. We propose to seek information on the additional costs. One other matter that I wish to mention is that the Opposition has over four pages of proposed amendments to this legislation; the Democrats have over four pages of proposed amendments to this legislation. I suggest that this is an indication that somewhere or other the Minister has gone wrong. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.43) —The Australian Democrats will support the second reading of the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill. In the Committee stage we shall move several amendments to ensure greater Australian Capital Territory community input into the National Capital Development Commission. We want safeguards so that the future development of the NCDC will be fully integrated with the self-government structure that will emerge within the Australian Capital Territory. If we were in the Government's position, we would also have drawn further on the recommendations of the White Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, as proposed by Senator Lewis, to set in train arrangements that recognise the wider regional role of the Australian Capital Territory. This could have been done without compromising future relationships with the governing body of the Territory. However, I believe that if we had gone that far, the Bill would no longer be the Government's and it might simply have been allowed to lapse without any benefit to residents of the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, I understand that the Government will accept some of our proposed amendments, thereby giving the people of the Australian Capital Territory an NCDC more in keeping with what they have been asking for over the years. I turn now to the Bill as presented by the Government. A cynic might well sum it up by claiming that the Government just wanted to get the appointments to the Commission completed and then everything else would look after itself. However, I think that that appraisal is a little harsh. I am certain that the Government is busily looking at the future changes which will have to be made to the NCDC to make it fit into the Government's idea of self-administration for the Territory. However, matters concerned particularly with the social and environmental consequences of decisions have to be dealt with right away. The Australian Democrats will seek to write into the NCDC's charter an obligation to have regard to the social and environmental consequences of its decisions. I know that the Commission has already come some way towards this after receiving sustained public criticism on this score before the White Committee reported. Earlier this year the Commission established a social planning and development branch with about 15 to 20 staff to `produce social-climate assessments and needs assessments in areas of concern to the Canberra community'. That is a very important step. I believe that the hand of the responsible officer will be strengthened by a little legislative backing. Residents of Canberra will be aware of the public reaction of the NCDC's proposal for a transportable homes park at Duffy in the Weston Creek area. That type of proposal would not have surfaced if the NCDC were under an obligation to consider the social consequences of its decisions. On a smaller note, the provision of emergency telephones on the sides of the parkways and major roads well away from the nearest houses would probably be budgeted for automatically. Problems such as the controversy over alterations to lease conditions near the city centre may not have arisen if the NCDC had had to bear in mind the environmental consequences of what it was doing. The question of the NCDC's taking a wider regional role is not taken up in the Bill despite the findings of both the White Committee and the Vinson Review of Welfare Services and Policies in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory provides services to a much larger population outside its borders. Unless this is taken into account and provision is made for proper planning, we will continue to find situations such as the chronic shortage of nursing home beds, which exist at the moment. Similarly, there are questions of land use outside the Australian Capital Territory borders and of the co-ordination necessary for decisions to complement each other rather than to stand in stark contrast with each other. I urge the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and the Department to take up these matters both in connection with the NCDC and the general process of transition to self-government within the Australian Capital Territory. Recommendation 8 of the White Committee was that the Commission be restructured into a five-member body of whom two would be nominated by the House of Assembly. The Government instead, as Senator Lewis said, has opted for three full time commissioners and four part time commissioners, all of whom the Minister was to appoint. At least two of the commissioners would be residents of the Australian Capital Territory and at least one would live outside the Australian Capital Territory. Apart from that, we have no guarantees of local involvement in the planning of our national capital. I believe that the situation is unacceptable. When the Australian Capital Territory is on the verge of self-government, we should definitely involve the House of Assembly in selecting the members of this body. We will move an amendment to the Opposition's proposed amendment to achieve that end. Earlier this year we found that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) started with a view that she alone would make appointments to the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, but eventually she relented and two Assembly members elected by the House of Assembly have gone on to the Schools Authority. I believe that it is very important that local people be involved in local matters. I am reminded that under the previous Government the Minister, Mr Hodgman, started with a view that he should decide the members of the National Exhibition Centre Trust. Eventually, he relented. One member of the House of Assembly was nominated to that body. The running of the NCDC cannot be divorced artificially from the government of the Australian Captial Territory. There is a clear inter- relationship, and there are clear consequences for the residents of the Capital Territory. As a result of this, the Australian Democrats want to see a real input from the House of Assembly into the composition of the National Capital Development Commission. We also want to make sure that the commissioners have, when combined, expertise in areas which are essential to an understanding of the work that they must do in planning our national capital. We do not want to see commissioners relying only on the advice given to them. We want to see them asking the right questions. We want to see them being actively involved in the planning process and we want them to understand what they are doing. If that were done we would not expect the Commission to divide down the middle very often. However, we believe that if there were a tied vote it would be better for the matter to pass in the negative so that some more acceptable compromise could be thrashed out, and we will be moving an amendment to achieve that. I do not think that there is any point in hustling the Commission along on a matter of possible national importance. It is very important that we should have a Commission that acts in a reasonably concerted way. Since the inception of the NCDC in 1957 only once has the last resort in the dispute settling procedure been called upon. The ministerial directive has been used only in the case of the erection of the Black Mountain tower. I think this should be a lesson and we should make certain that any decision which is very close is properly explained. We want to make sure that the people of the Capital Territory have as much information as possible before them in any of these dispute situations and we shall be moving amendments designed to have both sides of the story before the people if a dispute is deep seated or if a ministerial call is made upon the Commission. Similarly, we want to see the quarterly reports of the NCDC put before the House of Assembly after the Minister has tabled them in the Parliament. This is only reasonable, as the Assembly represents the people of Canberra. Finally, we want to make sure that the structure and operations of the NCDC remain relevant. The White Committee recommended in paragraph 5.48 of its report that the Commission's performance be reviewed every 10 years. We support that review process, together with an earlier one in 1990. At that stage, in 1990 we would expect some of the self-government matters to have settled down a little and a lasting relationship between the National Capital Development Commission and the new form of government to have been established. We would like to have a future government coming back to the Parliament after the first review. At that time the integration of the NCDC into the self-government arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory should be possible. We call for the review in 1990 to look at that relationship between the two bodies. We are hoping to encourage future governments to do so by getting them back to the Parliament to prolong the part time appointments beyond 1992. This is the process that we propose to make certain there is a sunset clause in the legislation. We understand that the Government is not willing to support this amendment but we will still be moving it in the Committee stage of the debate. I believe that it is extremely important that we do not just get reports tabled in Parliament which the Government can ignore. If the legislation has a sunset clause in it the Government must act, if it is going to save the Commission. I now turn to the specific amendments which we are proposing and which I will be moving in the Committee stage of the debate. In clause 6, which describes the membership of the Commission, we will be moving: The members of the Commission shall include persons who have professional qualifications and substantial work experience in one or more of the following disciplines: (a) accounting and finance, (b) architecture, (c) corporate or business management, (d) engineering, (e) social and environmental planning, (f) town planning, (g) public administration, (h) such other disciplines as are prescribed- that is, by regulation- so that at least 5 of those disciplines are represented by those members. I understand that neither the Government nor the Opposition is prepared to support this amendment. The Government has circulated an amendment which has come out of a negotiating process which does not have the requirement that at least five of those disciplines shall be represented. I believe that the Government will be moving that amendment in the Committee stage. We also intend to move-I understand that both the Government and the Opposition will be opposing this: A person shall not be appointed as a part time member for a period that extends beyond 1 July 1992. The reason for this is that there is a need for the legislation to come back to Parliament to be considered by the Parliament in the light of our experience of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. Our third amendment, which I have already mentioned, is aimed at making certain that we do not get decisions made in haste and regret them at leisure. We wish to leave out the casting vote provision and make certain that, if there is a tied dispute within the NCDC, the question shall be resolved in the negative. The next amendment that we will be moving refers to the environmental effects of the decisions of the NCDC-a very important aspect. We will be moving: In performing its functions under this Act, the Commission shall have regard to the social and environmental effects of its decisions, and nothing in this Act shall be taken to imply that the performance of the functions and the exercise of the powers of the Commission are not subject to the operation of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. This will guarantee that the Commission will always have before it the requirement to take into account matters of environmental importance. We will also be seeking to make certain that the reporting procedures which take place between the Minister and the Commission are carried out in the open and are available to Parliament, and to achieve that end we will be moving a number of amendments which relate to the reporting both from the Minister on his directives to the Commission and from the Commission on its replies to such directives. Another small matter has been brought up by the Government. I understand that both the Government and the Democrats have on the list of amendments to be moved in the Committee stage an amendment to make certain that certain skills are available on the National Capital Planning Committee. We will be moving that a landscape architect, who may be selected from a list of landscape architects submitted to the Minister by the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects, and a scientist with a special knowledge of, and experience in, environmental matters be appointed to the National Capital Planning Committee. We heard from Senator Lewis that the Opposition will move to include three members appointed by two-thirds of the House of Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. We will move an amendment to the Opposition's amendment to make certain that two of the persons shall be selected by the Minister from a list of four persons provided by the Assembly. We will also move an amendment to the Opposition's amendment aimed at providing a sunset clause to the legislation if the review report to be presented to the Parliament is not tabled by 1 July 1990. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(10.02) —The Opposition supports the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill 1985, albeit with very little enthusiasm. We are supporting it on the basis that it may tend to improve what is a very inadequate body. The purpose of the Bill is, first of all, to modernise the structure of the Commission. The second purpose is to make the Commission more accountable. But I have very grave doubts whether it is possible to make statutory bodies or any organ of the Public Service accountable, particularly in a financial sense-not with respect to dishonesty but with respect to the efficient use of resources. Thirdly, it replaces the corporation role of the Commission with a board of seven commissioners. Senator Lewis has very eloquently spoken of the overcapacity, the way in which one gets by with far fewer numbers if one wants anything effective done and the way in which we propose in the Committee stage to amend the constitution of the board of commissioners. We wish the Bill well, but we doubt very much whether there will be much improvement in the management of Canberra as a consequence of it. Before moving to the closer detail of the Bill or the proposed changes, it is worth recalling that this body has been in existence since 1958. It was formed as a consequence of a 1955 Senate Select Committee report on the development of Canberra, when Canberra had only about 36,000 inhabitants, suffered from an acute housing shortage and when most civic facilities were very short. But in the time since March 1958, when the NCDC started, there have been enormous changes in the national capital. My view is that the body ought to be disbanded. There is no justification for keeping it going. I emphasise that that is a personal view; it is not the view of the Liberal Party. But were we in government I would go to Senator Lewis as the responsible Minister and ask: `What is different about Canberra from every other city and shire in Australia? What is so different about this place that the accepted practices for the organisation of local government cannot be applied here'? What is different about this place? Why cannot the citizens of Canberra have a city council and manage their affairs in the way in which people under every other Australian local authority do? Why can they not raise their own rates and run the city within their own resources instead of living off the taxpayer in the way in which they do? They have so much kidney fat here, with all the infrastructure that has been put in place, that if they ran the place efficiently they could live on very low property rates and taxes for the next 100 years, because everything that needs to be done has been done. I say that with some feeling because I live in two cities. For half the year during the last seven years I have lived in Canberra; for the other half I have lived in my home State. I am not at all impressed with what I have seen the NCDC do during those seven years. My mind goes back to my orientation course as a new senator in 1978. We were met by a delegation from the NCDC. It may have been led by the Deputy Director or the Director at the time or whatever the position was called-the head honcho. I cannot remember. He took the new senators around in a bus and very obsequiously pointed out all the good things that had been done for Canberra by the NCDC. I could not see anything that had been done then that could not have been done by the works committee of an efficient city council. If one looks at the Canberra skyline one can see some of the points of which I am critical. The purpose of the National Capital Development Commission as set out in the Act of 1957 is encapsulated in section 11, which in the first part states: The functions of the Commission are to undertake and carry out the planning, development and construction of the City of Canberra as the National Capital of the Commonwealth. Broadly, it is to oversee the development in an orderly, harmonious and suitable way for the national capital. If it were daylight one could walk outside this building for a few hundred yards and see the monstrosity of what is going on in Kingston. Kingston is one of the pleasantest parts of Canberra. It is a suburb that has an increasing number of apartments and units. But nothing there has been built above the level of two or three storeys. For some reason that defies comprehension, the National Capital Development Commission has approved the construction of a tower of 14 storeys that shatters the harmony of the Canberra skyline. All of that sort of construction should be in the downtown area, which is the proper place for high rise development. I do not know how the Commission ever came to allow this building to be constructed in Kingston, but I do not know one person in Canberra who does not find it aesthetically jarring. It contrasts and fights with the inspired genius of the design of the new Parliament House, which fits and nestles, without dominating the landscape, into the hill behind this building. But if we go across the lake and look at the skyline, all we see is this tower poking out of the trees in what is really quite a beautiful vista. That, I am afraid, reflects the efficiency, objectivity and capability of the NCDC. It has been my experience over the years to serve on some of the Estimates committees that have dealt with the funding of the NCDC and the Australian Capital Territory. The impression that I have gained from that experience is that Canberra is a very self-indulgent city. It is a spoilt child of a city that has never grown up. It lacks cohesion. It lacks unity as a community. It lacks any sort of esprit de corps. It seems to be full of people who go out of their way to prove the point that the more one gives people, the more they want. That applies very much to the bodies that come before this Parliament asking for funds. It is a city that has never been subjected to any of the stresses of life. It has never had, and it cannot have, floods. Neither fire nor famine harms it. Its income is secure, whatever goes on within Australia. It is never affected by drought or a turndown in the rural economy. It is immune from any sort of industrial recession we might have because it lives off the public purse. There is nothing to develop the character of the city. But I am getting away a little from the Bill. I am not alone in my criticisms of Canberra. In preparing to debate this Bill it was interesting to see that there is a continual level of complaints by residents about the operations of the city and, principally, the operations of the NCDC. There is a continual cry that despite all the planning that has taken place in this city there is inadequate off-street parking. One resident went as far in a letter in the Canberra Times recently as to speak of the NCDC in this fashion: . . . a collection of academic social planners, the NCDC is too remote from the realities of everyday living and detrimental to the community it serves. One is left wondering if they will ever graduate from lego and matchbox models to an appreciation of the adverse impact their drawing board activities inflict on real lives. I remember the time a couple of years ago when I spoke to Australia's leading architect who had been commissioned to do a job for the NCDC. This is some four or five years back and we may well be faced with a different circumstance today but I doubt it. His complaint was that the NCDC ran a very closed club with respect to attracting talent to the town for architectural design and commissions. He said: `When you get in you find that your experience is a very unrewarding one because you are dealing with trivia the whole time'. He instanced the case when he flew in from interstate for a meeting with the NCDC. It provided 11 or 12 people for the meeting for the day and all they talked about was the placement of garbage bins for his new building. The meeting was called to discuss the fundamental design parameters of the building and they wasted thousands of dollars and the time of the people involved discussing something that was not worth breath arguing about. While it is not primarily a consequence of the NCDC, one of the things that really jar people from interstate is the situation of the ACTION bus service in Canberra. It is relevant to this Bill because it is a consequence of the planning that the NCDC has imposed on the capital for nearly 30 years. It has managed to create a situation where the budgeted loss this year for the buses of Canberra is $15.5m. I was not at the Estimates Committee this year which dealt with that, but I guess if any senator had questioned the representatives of the Australian Capital Territory as to why that loss was necessary they would have been dismissed the way I was dismissed years ago with the lofty comment: `All public transport systems lose money-what is unusual about Canberra?' I think Canberra is different from other capital cities. I would like to know how the loss rate on the buses in Canberra compares per head with the losses of other cities. This year, ACTION will buy 70 new standard buses. It will buy 12 new articulated buses just to drive around the bus-routes-not to carry passengers. It already has 398 buses on strength and if one looks at the statistics one finds that the Canberra bus service on average has bought 20 new buses each year to carry virtually no passengers. I would think that with the 82 buses it is buying this financial year it would be able to use the interiors out of any buses it is retiring because they are certainly not worn out by passengers sitting in them. To do all this it has a staff of over 800 people. The ACTION bus service is losing over $15,500,000 a year providing a service which no one wants and which no one uses. If one reflects on the needs of Australia, one cannot tolerate this waste. Let us look at the transport provisions in the Gulf of Carpentaria, that great area in the north of Queensland. Not one cent goes to subsidise the transport services in Cape York where people have to cope with very great distances, where there is no rail service and where the very poor roads are affected by the seasonal climatic changes of flood and are frequently impassable in the wet season. Communities are scattered throughout that Gulf area and through Cape York-communities that produce the export earnings of this country; the cattle industry, the gold mining industry and the bauxite mining industry at Weipa and the fishing industry at Normanton. The people of that community get not one cent to move their children to school or themselves to their work and to various locations. If that community could get even $500,000 in subsidy for legitimate transport services it would be really grateful and it would be of great benefit to the country. Those people do not get that, but we fritter away $15,500,000 for transport in Canberra. I said originally that the amount being spent on transport in Canberra is not required. Canberra has the highest median income in Australia. Even worse, it has the highest family income in Australia because an awful lot of spouses in Canberra also work for the Public Service. There are cars everywhere here and that is why people do not use the buses. However, we go through the ritual year after year of voting more and more money to provide a bus service that no one wants or uses. The National Capital Development Commission should be disbanded. As I said earlier, we should have a council and the work the NCDC does should be done by a works committee of the council. We should not have a huge edifice which costs us directly over $18m a year. The costs that are hidden cannot be measured but I suggest that the obfuscation to developers, the red tape and everything else that this body puts on the city of Canberra costs as much again in hidden costs as the direct cost of the $18m a year to run it. The reason I am opposed to it is that it is a waste of money on a grand scale. Many things come before honourable senators in the Senate that we do not agree with. At any one time roughly a half of this chamber does not agree with the business that is before it but we recognise that in politics one has to accommodate a different point of view. Maybe one cannot see the importance of something, one would prefer other things to be done but at least we are conscious of the fact that there is some justification for what is being done. The difficulty with the NCDC is that there is no justification. It is a gross waste of the public funds. For those reasons I am firmly of the belief-I would put the point to an incoming Liberal Government and an incoming Liberal Minister-that this body should be disbanded. In conclusion, I support the amendments that will be moved by Senator Lewis because they will in some way go to improving the legislation for this inadequate body. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) 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. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) read a first time. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.20) —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 make provision for the financing of the prospective Budget deficit in 1985-86 and in subsequent years together with the associated prospective deficits in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot legally exceed the moneys available to it, there is a need to seek authority to finance certain expenditures from borrowings to the extent that amounts appropriated by the Parliament for expenditure from that fund exceed estimated revenues. This Bill therefore seeks authority to borrow money for defence and other purposes and to enable certain other expenditures to be met from the loan fund rather than from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I should make it clear, however, that the Bill does not authorise defence or other expenditures additional to those otherwise authorised by Parliament under annual appropriation Acts and under Acts providing for special or standing appropriations. Successive governments have, for many years, introduced legislation in the form of an annual loan Bill to authorise the issue of moneys from the loan fund to meet defence expenditures or to reimburse the Consolidated Revenue Fund from loan fund in respect of certain non-defence expenditures. In view of the non-controversial, accounting nature of the legislation, which has been acknowledged by all the major parties in the Parliament, this Bill has been drafted as standing rather than annual legislation. That is, the Bill would provide authority for the necessary financing measures for 1985-86 and subsequent financial years to the extent necessary in the light of the respective years' Budget deficits. Standing loan legislation will in no way detract from Parliament's ability to debate the Budget. Nor, as I have already stated, does it impinge upon the Parliament's prerogative to authorise, and appropriate moneys for, expenditures for particular purposes. In the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced that the Budget deficit in prospect for 1985-86 is estimated to be some $4.9 billion. This gives rise to a prospective deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of around $6.0 billion. Existing standing authorities enable some $2.2 billion of expenditure to be charged to loan fund in 1985-86 leaving a shortfall of some $3.8 billion for which separate funding authority is required. This Bill seeks authority to borrow moneys accordingly. The amount of borrowings that may be undertaken pursuant to the proposed legislation is, in the case of defence expenditure, the amount for which appropriation is sought for defence purposes in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1)-some $6.2 billion in 1985-86-and any moneys for defence purposes that may be approved in subsequent appropriation Acts for a particular financial year. The effective limit in 1985-86 is likely to be significantly less than appropriations as defence expenditures cannot be charged to Loan Fund until the legislation is enacted. The legal limit for borrowing for non-defence purposes is determined by the level of borrowing authority approved by the Loan Council. It is estimated that the 1985-86 limits will be sufficient to enable the financing of the Budget deficit. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gietzelt) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.21) —I want to make some comments on a statement which was put out by the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) earlier today. It was a statement which I welcomed. The only comment about it which I would make is that it is a pity the Minister was forced to make it. That came about by the actions of his predecessor, the former Minister for Territories and Local Government. The statement which has been put out today indicates that the Minister is reviewing the practice of enforcing the tenancy provisions in relation to rental housing in the Australian Capital Territory. I need to go back a little. The previous Minister for Territories and Local Government made it plain that while he was Minister no steps would be taken to evict any tenant in the Australian Capital Territory for any reason. What we have had to put up with since then is a considerable growth in the arrears of tenants in the Australian Capital Territory. I understand that some people are up to $3,000 to $4,000 in arrears of rent. About $1m is now owing as a consequence of the previous Minister's attitude to the responsibility of administering the housing scheme. Tenants of government houses have had to put up with the most appalling conduct from others in their blocks of flats and there has been nothing the Department has been able to do about it. It reached the stage where rent was something one paid if one felt like paying it. I have not the slightest doubt that amongst some of those who have got into arrears there are hardship cases. I have not the slightest doubt that the Department, as the Minister has now said, will deal sympathetically with them in making arrangements for paying off the arrears. But that has always been the case. There has never been a time when the Department of Territories has taken a harsh attitude towards those who went to it and indicated that they had difficulties in maintaining their rental payments. In fact, there were always most generous arrangements for concessions on rent for those who needed that sort of concession. The previous Minister's attitude had really no regard for the rights of other tenants or for his responsibilities towards these properties. The $1m that is owing represents perhaps 15 houses that could have been purchased to provide housing for those people on the long waiting list for housing. It is money that could have been used to do up a number of flats and houses that need doing up and need maintenance before they can be reoccupied. Therefore, I welcome the statement by Mr Scholes indicating that an effort will be made to collect the arrears, that there will be better management of the government housing stock in the future and that those who do behave badly and do behave in a way that causes disruption to the lives of other tenants run the risk of being evicted from the properties that they now occupy. The Minister has also said that he is abolishing the Housing Branch Advisory Committee and that Committee is to be replaced by a new body. He indicated that he will make an announcement as to what that will be shortly. So I shall await with interest what he intends to do in that respect. I felt that it should be placed on record that I think he is taking a responsible attitude to try to redress what has occurred. The pity of it is that he has been put in a position in which he has to do this. I know that the Department will deal properly with those who have difficulties, but I hope that it will take a very firm line with those who, it can be shown, have deliberately not paid rent from the time in which the previous Minister indicated that rent was virtually an option for tenants. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.25) —I wish to raise the matter of regional offices of the Australian Taxation Office. I commend the Taxation Office for opening a regional office in Newcastle, which is staffed by a Deputy Taxation Commissioner, because in my mind there is no doubt that bringing the Taxation Office closer to people in large decentralised areas is very important. Apart from being useful in the sense that it means that people in these decentralised areas not only have the opportunity to discuss their problems with the Taxation Office but also the Taxation Office has the opportunity for surveillance in these areas just as it does in the larger metropolitan areas. I believe there is a two-way benefit. I notice, for example, that in the Newcastle area there had been a centre with 18 staff from about 1943 which had no doubt given excellent service to the Hunter region. On 1 July this year about 450 people have been brought into a new Newcastle office which has its own Deputy Commissioner. The executive and other key personnel are also involved. I quote from a circular called `Going Places With Tax' which goes to employees of the Taxation Office. It states: Our aim for Newcastle is an office of some 800 staff, which will be achieved by adding taxpayers from the coastal region as far north as the Queensland border. I commend this aim. It fits in with the general objective of providing tax offices that have the most effective number of staff. I agree with the point made by the Commissioner in this circular called `Going Places With Tax' that having 4,000-odd people in the Sydney office was really getting beyond the limits of effective operation. The office really became too big. There was a very sensible proposition by the Taxation Office to appoint a decentralised task force. There is no doubt that the results of this task force recommending these decentralisations has brought great benefit. For example, Parramatta has been a very great success. I understand that there are similar offices at Dandenong in Victoria, and Townsville in Queensland. The interesting point is that over the past four years the number of Taxation Office staff has grown from under 12,000 to nearly 16,000. Despite the decentralisation to Parramatta, for example, the number of Sydney Taxation Office staff has grown back to over 4,000 which are dispersed through some eight city buildings. There is no doubt that the benefits of having these decentralised offices are very substantial. Taxpayers and tax agents are able to visit their local office which provides faster service.The smaller offices are more efficient. They process returns quicker, along with money and letters. These matters are handled much more speedily at the smaller offices than at the bigger offices. One of the interesting points is that the Taxation Office also saves money on rent. Looked at in terms of Sydney rental costs, the Commissioner points out in his letter to staff that the Taxation Office now saves between $2m and $3m a year by moving 800 tax people to less central locations in Sydney. What interests me is what happens next. I commend the Taxation Office on what it has done so far. I support the view of the task force that there were four key matters in making recommendations for a new or expanded office. Those were: the office needs to be in a major commercial centre we need tax people prepared to work there we need accommodation for 800-1,000 people we need a representative mix of taxpayers so that we have an adequate career structure. What concerns me is what the Commissioner is doing next. I notice from the circular that we are looking at seven areas in New South Wales-that is, six other areas apart from Newcastle. There are the southern suburbs of Sydney, Albury-Wodonga, Sydney itself, Chatswood, outer southern areas and, further in, Parramatta. I am most disturbed to note that in the latest circular from the Taxation Office dated 2 August to its staff it proceeds in this order of hierarchy: First, Chatswood; secondly, Hurstville; thirdly, Wollongong; and, fourthly, residual sites. I have no objection to the fact that plans for an office have now progressed to the stage where all that remains is for the construction work to commence the building at Chatswood, where the Commissioner is working towards a 1987 opening date. There is no doubt that there is demand in that area from taxpayers for that kind of service. What concerns me though is having Hurstville as a second choice, and possibly Sutherland ahead of Wollongong. Hurstville is currently the preferred location for setting up an office in the southern suburbs of Sydney, and this proposal has received the support of the Committee for the Location of Australian Government Employment, which advises the Government on proposed new work locations. Frankly I cannot see how it is possible that the southern suburbs of Sydney should have any priority over Wollongong as the ideal location for setting up a tax office. Yet all the Taxation Office says is: Recent research indicates that Wollongong could be a site for a future office. Then it says this most curious thing: The viability of any proposal to set up a new branch office in this city, however, relies heavily on sufficient staff being interested in working there. The issue is whether there is demand for the services of the tax office. That should be the No. 1 priority-a priority not mentioned in the First Assistant Commissioner's latest circular of 2 August. The first priority is whether a tax office is needed in Wollongong, not whether the staff would like to work there. Let us get our priorities straight. There is no doubt that in terms of unemployment, for example, there is a great need for Federal Government activity to take place in the City of Wollongong. There is no doubt that there is demand in that region. If it is good enough to have a regional tax office with a deputy commissioner in Newcastle, surely it is good enough to have one in Wollongong. I am most disappointed to see that there is a prospect of Wollongong being downgraded in the latest internal circular within the Taxation Office, long after Hurstville. If this is simply to placate the southern suburbs because Chatswood is getting a go, it strikes me as a most curious approach. I hope that the Taxation Office does not depend in its decision making on the requirements of its staff rather than on the requirements of its customers. There is no doubt that it might find it much easier to staff a Hurstville or a Sutherland office-I have nothing against either of those locations-on the basis that there will be more staff readily available. There is a good case perhaps for setting up such an office, and I do not wish to argue against it. All I wish to argue about is the fact that without doubt a tax office is needed in Wollongong. I am astounded that at a time when there is talk of having a new Commonwealth centre built in Wollongong, which will be a stimulus to the region, that concurrent with the planning of that office in Wollongong there should also be an intention by the Taxation Office to occupy a large portion of that building. Unless the Government itself imposes some discipline on the Taxation Office by instructing it that there are other factors to be considered apart from the convenience of the Taxation Office, such as the convenience of the people involved, I fear that Wollongong will be pushed way down the list of priorities. The indication is that Hurstville or Sutherland is above it now. I stress that I am in no way downgrading the very efficient operation that is conducted on a small scale in Wollongong now, but it is a very small office with 14 or 15 or so staff. There is nothing like the 600 staff that would be the objective which one would have if one were to set up a fully integrated operation covering the whole range of tax procedures. Unless there is that full range, the capacity to provide a career structure for people, success will not be achieved with regionalised offices. I think the Wollongong region has every reason to feel let down by the Government on this score. It will be disappointed by the Taxation Commissioner's lack of enthusiasm to proceed with Wollongong. I simply hope that the Government will intervene in this matter and will recognise the important nature of this region, the high level of unemployment in this region and the stimulus that would be given to the region by adding another government service to it, particularly in a situation where one is not simply uneconomically diversifying a service by the Government, but where investigations in the past have demonstrated that it is in the interests of the service itself to decentralise. I quote once again from the circular `Going Places with Tax' signed by Mr Boucher, the Commissioner, on 12 June 1985 in which he said: From our experience and the results of overseas research, it seemed that an effective size would be about 800 staff; and that an office of about 800-1,000 with a balanced workload would be more efficient than the larger offices which have grown up over the years. One can see that Newcastle would achieve that by going to the Queensland border for their customers. Exactly the same situation obtains in Wollongong where it can go to the Victorian border, stretch inland to Campbelltown, which is only half an hour or so away and is a major growth centre. I cannot see why the Wollongong region should not be given a far higher priority. As I understand it, the Wollongong community is strongly behind it. The Lord Mayor, Frank Arkell, is strongly behind it and he is also the State member of parliament for that region. I do not know whether the other State members in the region, who are all members of the Australian Labor Party, are concerned or have taken any action. I have not heard of their taking any positive role in such a matter, nor have I heard of the Federal Labor members who overwhelmed the region getting off their backsides in this matter. But it seems to me absolutely vital that the Government should serve this area not only on account of the fact that there is a demand, but also because it would be more efficient for the Taxation Office to do so. I hope that the Government looks at this very seriously indeed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.37) —Following Question Time today, I sought leave to make a brief statement to correct an answer given by Senator Gareth Evans in reply to a question by Senator Aulich. Senator Evans has once again misled this chamber. I quote this statement from Mr Neil Robson, Member of the House of Assembly of Tasmania: In February 1984 I attended the European Management Forum held in Davos, Switzerland. While I was at Davos I collected a large number of conference and other papers. The conference papers came in a plastic briefcase, as is usual at conferences of this kind. The officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Australian Trade Commission had been most helpful to me and the officials travelling with me during our stay in Davos . . . and had indicated that if they could help in anyway to let them know. As I was travelling on to other European cities and then to Japan and Hong Kong after leaving Davos, I asked them if they would be kind enough to send some papers and other things back to Australia for me. I needed more room in my luggage to carry some additional promotional material on Tasmania with me. This promotional material had been sent direct to Davos from Tasmania. I had not been carrying it with me before I arrived there, so if I was to take it on with me I needed to make room in my luggage. I then added a few personal items to the conference papers. This was done in the presence of the Commonwealth officers who then sealed it with tape they had brought with them. As Senator Evans has been kind enough to remind me, these items included some dirty socks, some toilet soap and an old razor. I had no idea what method the officers would use to send the briefcase back to Australia. I am aware of the question asked by Senator Aulich today and the answer given by Senator Evans. It appears that Senator Evans may have misled the Parliament when he claimed: ``Mr Robson visited the Australian Embassy in Berne and handed in a plastic container for return to Australia''. I did not visit the Australian Embassy in Berne in 1984. In fact, I did not visit Berne at all in 1984. The officers at Davos were well aware of the other things in the plastic briefcase....they had been present when I packed it....and had even supplied the tape to seal it up. I later received a letter from the Australian Customs Service informing me that the briefcase had been detained. I gather this kind of thing must be common because it was a roneod letter with the appropriate spaces filled in. A copy of that letter is attached. Also written on the letter is a note from my Executive Officer at that time which says: ``Spoke to Miss J. Hollins and explained situation that no intention to forward via diplomatic pouch. She advised that she will arrange for papers to be forwarded as soon as possible. The toiletries will follow later after documentation is cleared up''. The date of that note was March 13. The Department of Foreign Affairs later wrote to me asking me to reimburse the Department an amount of $60.37. This amount was duly reimbursed by personal cheque. This attempt at smear and innuendo is just the latest in a whole series the ALP has launched against me in recent months. As I said in the House the other day, they are desperate and will do anything, say anything to try to win votes in Bass. I have topped the poll in the last two elections and all our research shows I will top it again this time. Senator Aulich could not even win one of the seven Wilmot seats at the last State election....so they pensioned him off to Canberra. As for Senator Evans....I have yet to hear him offer to reimburse the Australian taxpayers for his outrageous misuse of RAAF aircraft to spy on Tasmania during the dam debate. If they want to hang dirty linen on the line, let them hang their own. That is where the statement from Mr Neil Robson ends. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is present, to let Senator Evans know that this chamber does not appreciate his misleading the Senate and asks for his apology. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education)(10.43) —Tonight Senator Reid very generously commended Minister Scholes on his decision to assist people in housing commission homes who are having difficulty in meeting their payments. I thank Senator Reid for her constructive remarks. Senator Michael Baume made rather lengthy comments on his views about the appropriate location of a new tax office in the region which he represents. I will pass those comments on to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who is responsible for taxation matters, and probably more appropriately to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, who is the Minister in charge of the allocation of government offices. Senator Walters, on behalf of Mr Neil Robson, a Tasmanian member of parliament, has made an explanation to the Senate of his account of his use of Department of Foreign Affairs facilities for the return of some personal items to Australia. I will pass on Senator Walters's explanation to Senator Gareth Evans, the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, for his consideration. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.44 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 454) Senator Macklin asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs advise whether there are still long delays in dealing with veterans' claims under the Repatriation system; if so, what is the average length of these time delays. (2) What is the backlog of claims still awaiting settlement or review? (3) What steps have been or are being taken to streamline the system in order to expedite the clearing of the backlog and to ensure that this situation does not occur again. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) While there are still delays in dealing with veterans' claims in the Repatriation system, progress is being made in reducing the mean times taken under the determining system which has been in operation since 1 January this year. For the fortnight to 13 September 1985 the mean times taken in calendar days to process claims and applications for review were as follows: Primary level-Entitlement, 308; Assessment, 309. Veterans' Review Board-Entitlement, 603; Assessment, 576. (2) On 13 September 1985 the numbers of claims and applications for review outstanding were as follows: Primary level-Entitlement, 25,939; Assessment, 11,559. Veterans' Review Board-Entitlement, 10,217; Assessment, 4,530. Over the two week period the reductions or increases in the numbers outstanding were as follows: Primary determination-Entitlement, -356; Assessment, -410. Veterans' Review Board-Entitlement, +119; Assessment, +41. (3) The new determining system began operations on 1 January 1985. At the primary level new determining officers have been appointed and trained. While the level of outstanding claims continued to increase in the first part of the year, the number of determinations has exceeded intake of claims in recent months. Significant reduction in the time taken to process claims depends on reducing the backlog of very old claims in the system and this is being done as rapidly as possible. Additional resources have been provided for the investigation and processing stages of the determining system and considerable improvements have been made in procedures and processing of claims. A task force has been used to increase the number of decisions taken at the primary level. My Department undertook a review of medical examination and reporting procedures and the results of that review are being put into effect. At the Veterans' Review Board level there were some delays up to around April this year because of the difficulty in ensuring that there were section 107VE reports available to enable a continuing flow of cases to the Veterans' Review Board. Since then the output of section 107VE reports has increased to the stage where the Veterans' Review Board should be able to operate at an optimum level of output if there are sufficient applicants ready to proceed to the hearing of their cases. The objective is to reduce the average time taken to decide claims at the primary level of decision-making to 90 days by 30 June 1986. The important element in the times taken and backlogs in the determining system is the flow of claims and applications for review. In 1984-85 the number of claims rose to 33,527 compared with 24,913 in 1983-84, 20,836 in 1982-83, 15,188 in 1981-82 and 13,149 in 1980-81. (Question No. 464) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in South Australia (SA) and Northern Territory (NT) since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in SA and NT since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in SA and NT have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post office agencies have opened in South Australia and the Northern Territory during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office agencies opened Date operations commenced Sanderson... 3 October 1983 Yulara... 18 June 1984 Palmerston... 15 October 1984 (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in SA and NT during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Hammond... 1 July 1983 Iron Baron... 1 July 1983 Hampden... 1 August 1983 Wanilla... 29 August 1983 Penwortham... 1 November 1983 Wunkar... 1 November 1983 Galga... 1 December 1983 Walker Flat... 1 February 1984 Bellevue Heights... 30 July 1984 Mount Schank... 1 October 1984 Sheringa... 1 October 1984 Port Pirie South... 2 March 1985 Glenburnie... 29 March 1985 Lyndhurst... 1 April 1985 Hilltown... 4 April 1985 Meribah... 21 June 1985 Ti Tree... 28 June 1985 Park Holme North... 5 July 1985 Netherby... 10 August 1985 Rowland Flat... 16 August 1985 (3) The following post office and post office agencies have been renamed in SA and NT during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: (a) (b) (c) Original name of Post Office or Agency Date renamed New name Waderr 1 November 1983 Wadeye Adelaide Rundle Street 12 March 1984 Adelaide Rundle Mall Sturt South 4 February 1985 Sturt (Question No. 465) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in Tasmania since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Tasmania since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Tasmania have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) No post offices or post office agencies have opened in Tasmania during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Tasmania during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office agencies closed Date of effect Preolenna... 1 October 1983 Deviot... 10 February 1984 Nabowla... 30 April 1984 Dennes Point... 10 December 1984 Lemana Junction... 15 February 1985 (3) No post office or post office agencies in Tasmania have been renamed during the period 3 May 1983 to 21 August 1985. (Question No. 466) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in Victoria since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Victoria since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Victoria have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post office agencies have opened in Victoria during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: Post Office and Post Office Agencies Opened Date Operations Commenced * Upfield... 5 April 1983 Deer Park North... 4 July 1983 Mill Park... 1 August 1983 Endeavour Hills... 5 September 1983 Wantirna... 3 October 1983 World Trade Centre... 3 January 1984 Scoresby... 1 February 1984 Clarinda... 1 August 1984 Lalor Plaza... 15 October 1984 Karingal Centre... 22 October 1984 Gladstone Park ... 4 February 1985 Mildura Centre Plaza... 1 April 1985 Fountain Gate... 8 July 1985 * Upfield post office agency closed on 9 November 1982 but re-opened on 5 April 1983. The re-opening was omitted inadvertently from the answer, published in Hansard on 23 August 1983, to Senator Colston's question No. 104. (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in Victoria during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office Agencies Closed Date of Effect * Catani... 25 June 1981 * Hallam... 26 June 1981 Ararat North... 31 May 1983 Pine Lodge... 1 July 1983 Colac East... 1 August 1983 Mount Waverley North... 13 October 1983 Knowsley... 1 November 1983 Casterton West... 14 November 1983 Killarney... 1 December 1983 Pedrina Park... 17 December 1983 Torrita... 3 January 1984 Fraser... 31 May 1984 Pender... 21 September 1984 Tootgarook... 30 November 1984 Essendon Airport... 28 December 1984 Landsborough West... 11 January 1985 Noradjuha... 18 January 1985 Glen Waverley South... 24 January 1985 Lillimur... 31 January 1985 Wail... 1 February 1985 Bonbeach... 11 February 1985 Mandurang South... 29 March 1985 Glenbervie... 12 April 1985 Thomson... 4 May 1985 Yundool... 24 May 1985 Castlefield... 28 June 1985 Kotta... 28 June 1985 Mont Park... 28 June 1985 Avonsleigh... 5 July 1985 Geelong Church Street... 12 July 1985 Haven... 31 July 1985 Millbrook... 31 July 1985 * Catani and Hallam Post Office agencies were omitted inadvertently from the answer, published in Hansard on 23 August 1983, to Senator Colston's question No. 104. (3) The following post offices and post office agencies have been renamed in Victoria during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: (a) (b) (c) Original Name of Post Office or Agency Date Renamed New Name Meadow Fair 1 December 1983 Broad- meadows Square Forest Hill Centre 9 May 1985 Forest Hill (Question No. 467) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post office agencies have opened in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office Agencies Opened Date Operations Commenced Claymore... 4 October 1983 Glossodia... 1 February 1984 Warriewood Shopping Square... 1 August 1984 Sylvania Southgate... 22 October 1984 Macarthur Square... 3 December 1984 Batehaven... 6 February 1985 Wetherill Park... 1 April 1985 (2) The following post office agencies have been closed permanently in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. Post Office Agencies Closed Date of Effect Clifton... 1 July 1983 Parkes North... 22 September 1983 Hammondville East... 26 September 1983 Alectown... 30 September 1983 Zetland... 30 September 1983 Lane Cove West... 1 November 1983 Michelago... 1 November 1983 Dawsons Hill... 30 November 1983 Frogmore... 30 November 1983 Garema... 30 November 1983 North Rothbury... 30 November 1983 Terara... 9 December 1983 Wamoon... 30 December 1983 Ardglen... 31 December 1983 Clareville Beach... 6 March 1984 Narrabeen North... 26 April 1984 Baldry... 30 April 1984 Beaumont... 1 May 1984 Jenolan Caves... 31 May 1984 Oxford Falls... 31 May 1984 Darbys Falls... 29 June 1984 Turill... 29 June 1984 March... 31 July 1984 Bylong... 15 August 1984 Glendale... 10 September 1984 Warrell Creek... 28 September 1984 Waratah South... 2 October 1984 Pambula Beach... 8 October 1984 Sunny Corner... 19 October 1984 Sylvania Heights... 22 October 1984 Lucknow... 23 November 1984 Bonnells Bay... 3 December 1984 St Georges Basin East... 7 December 1984 Comara... 12 December 1984 Peakhurst West... 15 December 1984 Jerangle... 21 December 1984 Lake Illawarra... 10 January 1985 Mossy Point... 15 January 1985 Yalgogrin North... 29 January 1985 Ballengarra... 31 January 1985 Crowther... 31 January 1985 Wattle Flat... 31 January 1985 Hume Weir... 7 March 1985 Wingen... 1 May 1985 Pine Ridge... 29 May 1985 Balladoran... 28 June 1985 Black Mountain... 28 June 1985 Sussex Inlet South... 1 July 1985 Tarana... 8 July 1985 Cobbora... 31 July 1985 Bibbenluke... 31 July 1985 South Cessnock... 1 August 1985 Yennora... 12 August 1985 (3) No post offices or post office agencies have been renamed in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985. (Question No. 468) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) Which post offices have opened in Queensland since 3 May 1983 and on what date did each office commence operations. (2) Which post offices have permanently closed in Queensland since 3 May 1983 and when did each closure occur. (3) Which post offices in Queensland have been renamed since 3 May 1983; what were their original names; when was each office renamed; and what are the new names. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by the Australian Postal Commission: (1) The following post offices and post office agencies have opened in Queensland during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: Post Office and Post Office Agencies opened Date Operations Commenced Woodridge East... 5 September 1983 Bribie Island... 4 October 1983 Mount Pleasant... 1 February 1984 Park Ridge... 1 February 1984 Toowoomba South... 2 November 1984 Shailer Park... 26 November 1984 Morayfield... 3 December 1984 Wurtulla... 1 February 1985 Cannonvale... 14 March 1985 Helensvale... 29 April 1985 Eagleby... 1 July 1985 (2) The following post offices and post office agencies have been closed permanently in Queensland during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: Post Office and Post Office Agencies Closed Date of Effect Mt Isa South... 20 May 1983 Petford... 30 June 1983 Scarness... 24 August 1983 Maclagan... 27 October 1983 Kulpi... 19 November 1983 Fishery Falls... 29 December 1983 Glenarbon... 30 December 1983 Moresby... 29 February 1984 Long Island... 11 April 1984 Mount Coolon... 1 June 1984 Lindeman Island... 30 June 1984 Cement Mills... 20 July 1984 Kalpowar... 1 August 1984 Cooranga North... 1 October 1984 Yalleroi... 28 December 1984 Avondale... 2 January 1985 Colinton... 28 June 1985 Mater Hill... 28 June 1985 Mount Sylvia... 28 June 1985 Stonehenge... 31 July 1985 (3) The following post office agency has been renamed in Queensland during the period 3 May 1983 to 20 August 1985: (a) (b) (c) Original Name of Post Office Agency Date Renamed New Name *Bribie Island 1 July 1983 Bongaree *Bribie Island Post Office Agency was renamed Bongaree on 1 July 1983 prior to the new Bribie Island Post Office being opened on 4 October 1983. (Question No. 484) Senator Watson asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Will it be impossible for a veteran over 65 years to be granted a totally and permanently incapacity pension, under the terms of section 24 of the draft Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1985; if so, does this policy discriminate against the more aged and seriously disabled veteran. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: It is possible for a veteran over 65 years of age to be granted a pension at the totally and permanently incapacitated (T&I) rate under clause 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill (VEB). However, it is unlikely that many veterans over 65 years of age would meet the criteria for payment of T&I pension. The T&I criteria relate to a veteran who is prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work by reason of war-caused disabilities and thereby suffers a loss of earnings. Most Australians over the age of 65 years are not undertaking remunerative activity. Pensions already granted at the T&I rate are not affected. The only express reference made in the T&I provisions to the age of 65 years is in respect of a veteran who is unemployed. Where an unemployed veteran who is under 65 years of age satisfies a repatriation determining authority that he or she is genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work and that the veteran's service related disabilities are the substantial cause of the inability to obtain work, the veteran may be eligible for a pension at the special rate. The T&I criteria under the VEB have not been framed with the intention of discrimination against aged and disabled veterans. Rather, the purpose is to clarify the basis on which it was originally intended that a T&I pension would be payable. (Question No. 490) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: Has the Government set up a committee to review anti-dumping procedures for agricultural products; if so: (a) Who are the members of the committee (b) How widely does the committee intend to consult; and (c) Will the committee's findings be made public. Senator Walsh —The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) No Standing Inter-Departmental Committee exists. However, in the view of a number of representations by or on behalf of various agricultural interests about the adequacy of protection offered by the GATT Dumping and Subsidies Codes against unfair trade, senior officers of the Departments of Trade, Primary Industry and Industry, Technology and Commerce have met to consider the various issues. (b) All representations made to the Government on the subject are available to the Departments. I believe the problems experienced in this area by Australian agricultural interests are so well known as not to require further enquiry. (c) The Departments have not made findings. I have raised the issues of concern considered by the Departments with the Ministers responsible for GATT and trade policy and for the administration of Australia's obligations as a member of the GATT. (Question No. 540) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) How many letters has the Prime Minister received on the Tasmanian woodchip issue each month since January 1985. (2) What proportion of letters have favoured changes to the present operation of the woodchip industry, for each of these months. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) Some 1,200 representations were received during 1985 to mid-September. Approximately one-third supported, and two-thirds opposed, continuation of present woodchip industry operations. Statistics in the particular form sought in the honourable senator's question are not available. (Question No. 544) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: (1) What are the conditions of lease held by the Royal Canberra Golf Club over the area known as Westbourne Woods, Yarralumla. (2) How much rent is paid by the Royal Canberra Golf Club. (3) On what date was permission sought and granted for the Royal Canberra Golf Club to remove trees from the `Pine Plantation', in order to construct 9 new fairways and who gave this permission. (See answer to Question on Notice No. 340, Hansard, 12 September 1985, p. 514). (4) When is the destruction of the trees necessary for the construction of the 9 new fairways expected to take place. (5) How many trees will have to be destroyed. (6) Will the rent paid by the Royal Canberra Golf Club be affected in any way by the addition of the 9 new fairways. Senator Gietzelt —The following answer has been provided to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Royal Canberra Golf Club was granted a 50 year lease on 18 July 1980 under the provisions of the Leases Ordinance. The leased land encompasses the bulk of the Westbourne Woods area and a portion of adjoining land known as Lees Paddock. The lease requires the club to use the land for the purposes of a golf club and for any purposes incidental thereto with a requirement for the construction and completion of a 27 hole golf course and appropriate landscaping. To protect and maintain the many tree species in Westbourne Woods, the lease provides that trees are not to be interfered with, cut back, removed or planted without the prior consent of the Commonwealth. (2) A land rent of $9,600 per annum is payable under the terms of the lease until the year 2000, when a rental review will be undertaken. (3), (4) and (5) Approval in principle to the establishment of part of the additional 9 holes in the `Pine Plantation' was given most recently on 23 October 1984 by Mr Uren as Minister. No specific approval for removal of any trees has been given as the club must present a full development plan for the course. Until this plan is considered in detail no approvals for tree removal will be given. The timing and extent of tree removal has not been decided but it is expected to be phased in with thinning of the `Pine Plantation' which must be undertaken if the health of the trees is to be maintained. (6) No. The land rent has been determined taking into account the establishment of a 27 hole golf course. Senator Button —On 11 September 1985 (Hansard, page 452) Senator Teague asked me, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, a question without notice concerning the Ausflag '88 competition for a new Australian flag and I undertook to obtain the relevant information. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The successful application by Ausflag '88 for a small grant of $3000 from the International Youth Year Secretariat, which is part of the Office of Youth Affairs, was determined on the basis that such support would enable young Australians to participate in a national flag competition if they choose to do so. IYY funds have supported many other non-profit organisations and groups to stage conferences, seminars, festivals and other activities which have involved issues of public concern and interest and which were judged to contribute to broadening public debate. The Commonwealth Government's aim in International Youth Year has been to encourage greater involvement of young people in such issues of the day through processes which stimulate thought, creativity and activity. The decision to approve the grant to Ausflag '88 under these guidelines in no way reflects on or indicates the Government's policy on the national flag. As the Prime Minister stated in the House of 22 April 1985, the Government has no proposal before it to change the design of the national flag.